Sitting of 19 July 1965

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Leukaemia
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of deaths which have been caused by leukaemia in each of the last five years; and to what causes the increase in the incidence of this disease since the end of the Second World War are attributed.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): For the years 1960 to 1964 respectively 2,694, 2,645, 2,707, 2,830 and—provisionally—2,867. The incidence of the disease has been increasing since before the Second World War. The reasons are not fully known but improved diagnosis and the rising number of old people—who are particularly prone to the disease—are contributory factors.
    Mr. Newens: Does any information exist to disprove the contention that the increased incidence of this disease is connected with the increased incidence of radiation throughout the world as a result of nuclear weapon testing? If that is so, will my right hon. Friend give as much publicity as possible to any information on this in order to make everybody aware of the price in human suffering and death of possessing nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Robinson: It is known that heavy doses of radiation can cause leukaemia, but there is no evidence to show that the very slight increase in radiation received in this country from nuclear fall-out has been a contributory factor. Indeed, there is some evidence to show that it is not.
    Mr. Wood: In view of the figures and of what the right hon. Gentleman said
    1090
    about the increasing incidence, may I ask whether he can assure us that the amount spent and the range of research in the last few years have similarly expanded?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that there is no shortage of resources for research of this kind. Research is going on under the auspices not only of the Medical Research Council but also of voluntary organisations like the British Empire Cancer Campaign, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Leukaemia Research Fund.

    Carriage of Foodstuffs
    Mr. Newensasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied that the regulations which prohibit the conveyance of foodstuffs alongside dangerous chemicals are sufficient to prevent any danger to public health; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Charles Loughlin): My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations, 1960, require sufficient precautions to be taken to prevent contamination of the food.
    Mr. Newens: Is my hon. Friend aware of the case in my constituency earlier this year in which a large number of people were affected as a result of flour being contaminated by dangerous chemicals during transit? In view of that case, may I ask my hon. Friend to have another look at the situation, since I understand that no adequate Act or regulations exist to govern the transfer of dangerous chemicals of this sort which are not prescribed poisons?
    Mr. Loughlin: We are responsible for the regulations governing the carrying of food and are satisfied that they are adequate for most cases. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there is always danger of an isolated occurrence similar to that which took place at Epping and that, no matter what regulations might be framed, they could not eliminate entirely the possibility of such occurrences.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the Parliamentary Secretary show a little more urgency about this matter and get down to it instead of just waffling?
    Mr. Loughlin: I do not know about waffling. We believe that the regulations are adequate and, indeed, if one bears in mind the total amount of food transshipped all over the country as compared with the number of occurrences of this sort, one can only assume that they are adequate. As for waffling, perhaps I can have notice of that question.

    Cervical Cancer
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Health what evidence he has about the rate of cervical cancer in Jewish women compared with other women; and what are the reasons for the disparity.
    Mr. K. Robinson: National statistics do not distinguish between religions. Various studies have shown that Jewish women have a markedly lower incidence rate than others but the reasons are not yet established.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman seek further into this matter and see what Professor Ross of Newcastle has to say about it? If he is correct in his assumptions, and they are no more than assumptions, is it not important that the information available from them should be made known to the public?
    Mr. Robinson: There is no conclusive evidence available at the moment but there are indications that male circumcision may be a factor in the lower incidence rate among Jewish women, and there is also the fact that the death rate from cancer of the uterine cervix in Israel in 1961 was only 1 per 100,000 compared with 10½ per 100,000 in England and Wales.
    Mr. Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman publicise this? The disease is so lethal that anything we can do to reduce its incidence and save life should be urgently pursued.
    Mr. Robinson: No doubt the Question and Answer will get publicity, but I want to be certain that this is the cause before making any definite statement on the subject.

    Medical Practitioners and Dentists (Complaints)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Minister of Health how many complaints against
    1092
    medical practitioners and dentists, respectively, were received in the year 1963; and in what percentage of cases it was determined that there were valid grounds for complaint.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I would refer the hon. Member to Table 28 of my Department's Annual Report for 1963.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend give some thought to the present method of making complaints against the general practitioner? Would not he think it is fair that the person who makes a complaint should be invited to meet the local executive committee as well as the doctor?
    Mr. Robinson: I think that this is very frequently done. But in any case the disciplinary machinery in the general practitioner service is one of the matters which I shall be discussing with representatives of the profession.
    Mr. Pavitt: Would my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of the present discussions with the general practitioners to look at this question? Is he aware that there is a quite disproportionate anxiety among general practitioners about this procedure and that it would be most useful if, during the present negotiations, he could reach a settlement more satisfactory to them?
    Mr. Robinson: This is what I shall endeavour to do.

    Dental Decay
    Mr. Ioan L. Evansasked the Minister of Health what study has been made by his Department of a compound, whose chief ingredient is a plentiful mineral zirconium, developed by dental research laboratories in the United States of America, which could eliminate dental decay within a decade; and if he will consider the use of this new compound in future, instead of adding fluoride to the water supply.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Inquiries have shown that work on this and similar compounds in America is only in a preliminary stage. I know of no scientific evidence to suggest that they are an alternative to fluoridation.
    Mr. Evans: While realising the need to prevent dental decay, may I ask my

    1093
    right hon. Friend to recognise that there are widespread objections to the addition of fluoride to the public water supply? Will he or his Department consider this and other possible alternatives to meet this growing problem?
    Mr. Robinson: This report on the development of the compound referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Mr. Joan L. Evans), appeared only in an article in a popular magazine. So far as I know, there have been no reports whatever in scientific journals. I am completely convinced of the desirability, on health grounds, of fluoridation, and also of its safety. I hope shortly to be giving further guidance to local authorities on this matter.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does the Minister realise that a great deal of opposition to fluoridation is being stirred up by an organisation of cranks known as the National Pure Water Association? Does he realise that there are some hon. Members on both sides of this House who are so gullible as to be taken in by the unscientific propaganda of this organisation, and will he takes steps to educate hon. Members on the complete safety of fluoridation?
    Mr. Robinson: I shall certainly do my best. The hon. Gentleman probably knows that the campaign for fluoridation has been somewhat handicapped for the last two years, because of an action against Watford Corporation brought, I believe, on behalf of the association to which he referred. This action has now been terminated and we can go ahead.

    Health and Welfare Services, Great Yarmouth
    Mr. Fellasked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that the standards of health and welfare service administered by the Great Yarmouth local authority are comparable to those administered by the local authorities responsible for other county boroughs; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Loughlin: There are so many differences in the problems which confront different local authorities, and so many different aspects of the health and welfare services, that I do not consider it profitable to attempt general comparisons of this sort.
    Mr. Fell: I was just preparing myself to thank the Minister for giving me a kind answer. After that, of course, it is impossible. Would he at least say, in the most general terms, that as far as his Department is concerned, and as far as his Department knows, these services run by the local authority are reasonably satisfactory?
    Mr. Loughlin: As far as we know, they are reasonably satisfactory.
    Mr. Wood: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what are his plans, and by what methods he hopes to raise the standards of the less good authorities up to the standards of the best?
    Mr. Loughlin: The only way we can do that, and it is the way we are doing it, is by asking them to revise their programme. When the replies come in we shall ascertain, as far as we possibly can, whether they are going to be comparable or not.

    Old People's Accommodation (Great Yarmouth and Norfolk)
    Mr. Fellasked the Minister of Health how many old people have been rehoused since 1950, and how many are being cared for in hostels under the Great Yarmouth local authority; and what are the comparable figures for the Norfolk County Council area of administration.
    Mr. Loughlin: The numbers of old people rehoused are not recorded, but between 1st January, 1950, and 31st March, 1965, 676 one-bedroom flats and bungalows suitable for old people were built by Great Yarmouth County Borough Council, and 2,715 by borough and district councils in the county of Norfolk. On 31st December, 1964, 174 elderly people were in residential accommodation in the care of Great Yarmouth County Borough Council, and 845 in the care of Norfolk County Council.
    Mr. Fell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, which, a hope he will agree with me, shows that Yarmouth is doing pretty well in view of the differentials in the population figures.
    Mr. Loughlin: Yes. If one takes the percentage related to the figures I have

    1095
    given, it is quite clear that the percentage for Great Yarmouth of elderly persons in special warden service, housing and residential homes is higher than it is in Norfolk.

    Drugs (Purchases)
    Dr. Wyndham Daviesasked the Minister of Health on how many occasions and what amount of public money has been expended on purchasing drugs produced by Messrs Biorex, DDDSA Pharmaceuticals, or Inter-Continental Pharmaceuticals Limited.
    Mr. K. Robinson: In the last two years, two central contracts were placed with one of these firms and 39 contracts were placed with one or other of them by hospital authorities. The total value of all these contracts was approximately £300,000. Information is not available about sales of the firms' products to the pharmaceutical service.
    Dr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that these companies, these mushroom companies, have grown up as a result of the breaching of the Patent Act, Sections 41 and 46, and that one of these companies sold a life-saving drug for children which was 30 per cent. below strength? Will he not be deflected in his efforts by the business interests of two of his hon. Friends, the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) and for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies)?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not understand what that is meant to mean. That part of the question had better be withdrawn.
    Dr. Davies: With respect, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentlemen mentioned were directors of one of these companies and I wanted to make that point clear.
    Mr. Speaker: The implication, prima facie, underlying the hon. Gentleman's words is that they were exercising themselves as directors improperly to influence the Minister in his duties. The hon. Gentleman must make it quite plain that he is making no such allegation whatsoever.
    Dr. Davies: I make no such allegation.
    Mr. Robinson: In view of the hon. Member's supplementary question, I hope that the House can assume, since he has
    1096
    declared no interest, that he himself has not had an association or has no association with the pharmaceutical industry? Perhaps I can tell him, in order to put it on the record, that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Sir B. Stross) resigned his directorship of Messrs. Biorex on becoming a Minister. My other hon. Friend referred to resigned his directorship in April, 1959.
    Mr. Thorpe: With regard to one of the firms, Biorex, is it not a fact that this firm has spent a lot of money in valuable research and that it has carried out a considerable amount of price cutting on drugs to the benefit of the public as a whole? Is it not unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies), who I believe shares the hostility of the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry to this firm, because it is not a member of that association, is himself retained as one of their advisers, and is the senior medical adviser of Nicholas Laboratories, Ltd., which is one of the main competitors of Biorex?
    Hon. Members: Disgraceful.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is of the greatest importance in the interests of the House that there should be complete cesser of this implication that hon. Members on one side of the House or the other are activated by wrong motives. It must be so in the interests of the House. I do not think that it is for the Minister to express a view on the question put to him, which was whether such and such a matter was unfortunate. That asks him to express an opinion on a matter for which he is not responsible.
    Mr. Robinson: On a point of order. Would it not have been appropriate for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies) to have declared an interest if the statement was correct before asking the supplementary question?
    Mr. Speaker: I am not to say what is appropriate or not. But the practice of the House does not require an hon. Member to declare an interest on asking a question. The rule does not apply to that.
    Dr. Davies: On a point of order. I am not retained by the Association of British

    1097
    Pharmaceutical Industry and I am not associated with the pharmaceutical industry, otherwise I should have withdrawn.
    Hon. Members: Withdraw.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That does not raise a point of order. It is a correction of a point of fact made by an hon. Member who takes responsibility for the fact stated in his question. But all this is far from our business.
    Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies) has given certain information to the House. I note that there is no withdrawal or suggestion that I was in any way inaccurate in one of the suggestions made. With regard to the second—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be careful not to repeat by implication what I have indicated I regard was an undesirable practice.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies), do you recollect that language of a stupid and silly nature was used by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) in respect of a number of perfectly good people who hold contrary views to the remnant of a great party?
    Mr. Speaker: One might attract the accusation "stupid" if one thought that that point of order arose on this Question.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: You asked the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Dr. Wyndham Davies) to withdraw, Mr. Speaker, and he did. Another allegation which you thought was improper was made by the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). Would it not be advisable if he withdrew it?
    Mr. Speaker: It is so far back that I have forgotten what it was. I do not propose to pursue the matter further. I want the House to get on.
    Mr. Robinson: Perhaps I could answer the first half of the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). According to my information, it is quite correct that
    1098
    Messrs. Biorex have manufacturing capacity and some research facilities in this country, whereas the other two firms mentioned in the Question rely entirely on imports from abroad.

    Ambulance Service
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Health what proposals he now has for securing a more uniform ambulance service in terms of hours of availability, manning and stand by.
    Mr. K. Robinson: None, Sir. I am satisfied that local health authorities make ambulance transport available in accordance with local needs. If the hon. Member has any individual case of difficulty in mind, I shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Lewis: Does not the Minister agree that there are variations in the ambulance service between one area and another and that there is need for co-ordination so that the public may know that, wherever they are, they can get a service equal to the best that should be available?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, but needs vary. In the more urban areas, ambulance stations are manned for the whole 24 hours on a shift system, but in rural areas stations are manned for varying times in relation to the demand experienced in the area. In many of them, staff are on stand-by duty at their homes at night.
    Mr. Murray: In view of my right hon. Friend's Answer, may I ask him to consider setting up an inquiry into the possibility of establishing a national ambulance service, which is vitally necessary because of the difference in service that certain areas give to patients?
    Mr. Robinson: I have told the House that I am considering the arguments for and against that proposal.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction among the staff of the ambulance service in Greater London? What steps is he taking to ensure that their complaints against the conditions of service are sorted out?
    Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Member wants to ask a Question about the particular problems of London, I shall be glad if he will put it on the Order Paper.

    World Health Centre
    Mr. Alasdair Mackenzieasked the Minister of Health whether, before briefing the British delegation to the World Health Organisation Assembly, he sought the opinion of all sections of the medical profession through such bodies as the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges of Surgeons, the Royal Society, the universities or the Advisory Committee on Medical Research in Scotland, with regard to the desirability of setting up a World Health Centre in Scotland, Great Britain or elsewhere.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The Medical Research Council and the Council for Scientific Policy were consulted on the scientific merits of this proposal and the delegation was instructed in accordance with their advice.
    Mr. Mackenzie: Is the Minister aware that many distinguished medical men were in favour of setting up such a centre in Scotland? Was the Secretary of State for Scotland consulted about this matter?
    Mr. Robinson: Certainly, the Secretary of State for Scotland was consulted. I should, however, tell the hon. Member that since the proposal for a World Health research laboratory was opposed at Geneva by a large majority of the Assembly, the question of its location does not arise.

    Prescriptions
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Health how many prescriptions were issued under the National Health Service in England and Wales for the six months before the abolition of prescription charges and for the six months after, respectively.
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Health what evidence he has received respecting increases in prescriptions following the abolition of prescription charges.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Health if he will state the number of medical prescriptions issued in February, March, April and May of this year, and the numbers issued in 1964 for the same months.
    Mr. K. Robinson: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate them in the Official Report in tables showing the numbers of prescriptions dispensed by chemists in England and Wales during the three months February to April, 1965—the only months for which figures are available since the abolition of charges—and the numbers dispensed during the corresponding months of 1964 and during the six months before the abolition of charges.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain figures which he gave earlier this year showed a very marked increase in the number of prescriptions over the period, and is he satisfied that this increase is not due to abuse of the service by certain patients?
    Mr. Robinson: If the hon. and learned Gentleman is talking of abuses of the service, I wonder why he says "by certain patients" since it is the doctors who sign prescriptions and not the patients, but I would tell him that the increase has varied very considerably from area to area and from month to month, and it is far too early to draw any final conclusions about it.
    Mr. Bence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the contacts which I have made both with doctors and other people in my constituency confirm the fact that doctors are not prescribing to any degree greater than they prescribed before, when there were charges, and that for old people in this country, certainly in my constituency, the abolition of charges is as good as an increase of 5s. or 6s. a week in their pensions?
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that this abolition is very much appreciated, particularly by old people, but in reply to my hon. Friend I would say that there is some indication that doctors are tending to prescribe smaller quantities, which reduces the average cost per prescription, but may increase the total number if more repeats of prescriptions are necessary.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that an Answer to me last week dealing specifically with the Scottish figures and items of service rendered by general practitioners over these four months compared with the corresponding

    1101
    months last year showed a very significant rise? Does the same apply to England? If it is the case that there has been a considerable rise, will that fact be kept in the forefront in all the consultations which are now going on with the general practitioners?
    Mr. Robinson: Certainly general practitioners lose no opportunity of telling me about their workload, but I would not necessarily accept the contention that the number of prescriptions and the increase in these necessarily means an equivalent increase in the number of items of service which a doctor gives.
    Mr. Wood: Is it not very likely that the drug bill will show a very considerable increase by the end of this year; and, looking back, would it not have been very much wiser if the right hon. Gentleman had found improved methods to relieve the needy rather than subsidise people who are well able to pay?
    Mr. Robinson: I have already told the right hon. Gentleman and the House that it is too early to draw any final conclusions about the effects of this action. I would certainly remind him that his Government apparently tried for 13 years to find better ways of relieving the needy and signally failed to do so.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that Her Majesty's Opposition have always been opposed to a free National Health Service and that that is why they are squealing now?
    The following is the information:
    (a) Numbers of prescriptions dispensed by chemists in England and Wales during the months of February, March and April, 1965, compared with the same months of 1964:

    Number of prescriptions

    1964

    1965

    February

    …

    18,396,022

    20,775,870

    March

    …

    17,678,895

    23,735,830

    April

    …

    17,901,435

    20,213,539

    Totals

    …

    53,976,342

    64,725,239

    (b) Numbers of prescriptions dispensed by chemists in England and Wales during the months of:

    1964

    August

    …

    …

    …

    14,611,711

    September

    …

    …

    …

    16,263,446

    October

    …

    …

    …

    18,062,199

    November

    …

    …

    …

    17,656,154

    December

    …

    …

    …

    17,634,277

    1965

    January

    …

    …

    …

    18,579,479

    Doctors (Northern Region)
    Mr. Urwinasked the Minister of Health what estimate he has made of the shortage of doctors in the northern region; what action he proposes to initiate in order to improve the present position; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: A precise estimate is impracticable. The numbers of doctors is being increased generally by expanding the intake to medical schools. I am also seeking to facilitate better use of existing medical manpower.
    Mr. Urwin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the new impetus which is being given to economic development in the northern region it is more or less essential that there should be very early establishment of a medical school based on Durham University to resolve the existing problem of the shortage of doctors in the northern region?
    Mr. Robinson: I take note of what my hon. Friend says about Durham, but perhaps I should let him know that the ratio of general practitioners to population in the northern region is really not very much greater than what it is in the country as a whole. It requires only 26 additional general practitioners to bring the average list down to the national average.
    Mr. Wood: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chancellor of the Duchy in November promised he was going to make a statement about this shortage and methods of relieving it. We have now waited for eight months. May we be assured that we are going to get this statement during this Parliament?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the number of doctors in particular, but certainly there will be a statement about this before long. I cannot say when. It will, of course, be made not by me but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
    Mr. Braine: Is the Minister aware that the Parliamentary Secretary referred only a little earlier to one new medical school which has been established? Is he aware that the decision in regard to that was

    1103
    taken by the late Government? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to address his mind to the question whether in present circumstances something in the nature of a crash programme is not required?
    Mr. Robinson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very well aware of the need for doctors, but I would point out that the intake into all our medical schools has increased by 25 per cent. over about the last five years.

    Morriston Hospital (Senior Consultant Anaesthetists)
    Mr. McBrideasked the Minister of Health in view of the centralisation of the traumatic service in the Glantawe Hospital Board area at Morriston Hospital, Swansea, what is the number of senior consultant anaesthetists permanently based there; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Loughlin: There are two consultant anaesthetists based at Morriston Hospital and, in addition, three consultants based in the Glantawe Hospital Management Committee area hold regular weekly sessions there. The Welsh Hospital Board is at present considering the relative priorities of the need for additional consultant anaesthetists in Wales.
    Mr. McBride: Does my hon. Friend consider that the number of three senior consultant anaesthetists is sufficient for all eventualities? Is he aware that, in view of the centralisation of the traumatic service at Morriston Hospital, it means that 700 cases are handled there a year, and does he not think that there should be an increase in the level of consultants to lighten the load on the staff?
    Mr. Loughlin: The Welsh Hospital Board is reviewing the medical staff and considering the appointment of additional consultants at Glantawe Hospital, but I ought to tell my hon. Friend that Glantawe is not regarded as one of the areas in which there is an extreme shortage of consultants, and in practice it compares favourably with other parts of Wales.

    Reciprocal Arrangements
    Mr. Murrayasked the Minister of Health if he will give details of the
    1104
    countries with which the United Kingdom has reciprocal arrangements in health matters; and with which other countries this country is endeavouring to get reciprocal agreements.
    Mr. Loughlin: The social security reciprocal agreements with Belgium, Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and Yugoslavia include provisions for medical treatment for British residents on certain conditions; Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Yugoslavia also provide treatment for British short-term visitors. The New Zealand health services are available to all British people and there are arrangements with the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands—excluding Sark—for visitors. There are also limited agreements with Australia, Israel and Malta. No new agreements are at present under negotiation.
    May I apologise for the length of this reply.
    Mr. Murray: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether, in view of the small number of progressive countries supplying reciprocal health services, he will consider special arrangements for holidaymakers, particularly in the United States, where a constituent of mine has just had to pay over £900 for medical treatment while on holiday? This sort of thing causes a great deal of hardship, and I wonder whether some plan can be considered.
    Mr. Loughlin: There are difficulties when people from this country travel abroad in countries where there are no reciprocal agreements. My Department issues circulars to try to guide people, and, indeed, to advise them that it is necessary in many instances to take out insurance against any contingency. It is very difficult to arrive at reciprocal agreements with many countries because they have not got health services comparable with ours, and it would be very difficult for a Government to provide for British subjects a health service which is better than that which they provide for their own people.
    Mr. Cooper: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at 12 o'clock today the B.B.C. issued an entirely misleading and inaccurate statement on this very

    1105
    subject? Will he ensure that the B.B.C. gives proper publicity to the comprehensive statement which he has just made?
    Mr. Loughlin: I cannot be responsible for the B.B.C.'s publications, but I hope that it will take note of the statement that was made today and give it the necessary publicity.
    Dr. Wyndham Davies: In view of the dollar shortage, would not it be extremely valuable if the Minister took account of his hon. Friend's remark and charged American visitors to this country, to help our own doctors to stay in this country?
    Mr. Loughlin: We give a good Samaritan service to any visitor to this country, and I hope that we shall continue to do so, irrespective of which side is in Government. It would be very difficult to turn down people who needed emergency treatment. We take precautions against any person trying to come to this country for the purpose of abusing the Health Service.

  HOSPITALS

    United Liverpool Hospitals (Consultant Dermatologist)
    Mr. Hefferasked the Minister of Health if he will institute an inquiry into the way in which appointments were recently made with regard to the post of consultant dermatologist at the United Liverpool Hospitals; and whether he will empower the inquiry to take written evidence from the prominent doctors in Liverpool who have indicated their willingness to submit such evidence.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. I am satisfied that a valid appointment was made and that my intervention would not be justifiable.
    Mr. Heffer: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that in a letter to me he said that the regulations should be considered in itself indicates that this is a serious matter? Is he aware that there are many leading medical people in Liverpool who consider that there has been a conspiracy which has militated against Dr. Readett? Is he further aware that I have at least 12 names of eminent Liverpool medical people who are quite
    1106
    willing to give evidence to such an inquiry?
    Mr. Robinson: As my hon. Friend knows, I have gone very carefully into this case. It is a fact that in constituting the Advisory Appointments Committee two nominating bodies nominated the same person, which resulted in a committee of nine instead of ten, but this did not in any way invalidate the advice given to the board, and it is the board that makes the appointment. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have had representations on behalf of Dr. Readett from one Liverpool doctor and if there are others who wish to write to me I shall take anything that they say into account.

    Stanley Hospital (Casualty Department)
    Mr. Hefferasked the Minister of Health why a decision was made to close the casualty department at Stanley Hospital before the completion of the new accident unit at Walton Hospital.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Closure as originally planned would have followed the expected date of completion of the new accident unit at Walton. The latter has been delayed, and knowledge of the intended closure of the Stanley made it impossible to maintain staff complements at a level which would have enabled this closure to be correspondingly delayed. I have now agreed to the use of the Stanley by the regional hospital board until 30th June, 1968, to help in the reorganisation and improvement of services which they provide.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give great satisfaction in the area?
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Can my right hon. Friend say when the new accident unit at Walton Hospital will be ready?
    Mr. Robinson: According to my present information it is not expected to be ready before April, 1966.

    New General Hospital, Barnstaple
    Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Health whether the date has been fixed for the commencement of building of the new general hospital at Barnstaple.
    Mr. K. Robinson: We expect to start the first phase next month.
    Mr. Mills: Will the Minister bear in mind that, although this news is welcome, delay in hospital building has now spread to the Exeter Hospital as well, causing concern in the South-West? Does he not agree that this makes rather a mockery of the Socialist election manifesto which says that the National Health Service
    "… has been starved of resources"
    and hospital building has been
    "bogged down for lack of funds"?
    Mr. Robinson: The Question relates to Barnstaple, not Exeter, but the hon. Member knows perfectly well that £5 million more is being devoted this year to hospital building than his own party planned when it was in Government. The hon. Member also knows that the hospital plan is now under review and perhaps he will reserve his general comments on the matter until that review is published.
    Mr. Thorpe: Since this is the third occasion on which the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) has been kind enough to raise matters of hospital building in my constituency without my prior notice, may I say that I am delighted that the Conservative Party has now realised the urgency of stepping up the hospital building programme in the area? Is not it a fact that the starting date next month is already scheduled and that what we are waiting for now is the second phase which the previous Administration postponed for three years? Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the review of the priorities will be available?
    Mr. Robinson: It is the second phase that is being reviewed in the current programme. I shall not be able to give the hon. Member a firm answer on that subject until we have the review completed in the first half of next year.

    Newcastle General Hospital (Urological Unit)
    Mr. Rhodesasked the Minister of Health how many patients are on the waiting list for the Urological Unit at the Newcastle General Hospital; how many were on the waiting lists in July, 1964
    1108
    and 1963; and what steps are to be taken to improve the situation.
    Mr. Randallasked the Minister of Health when he received proposals from the Newcastle Regional Hospital Board to improve the urological service; to what extent they take account of a waiting list in excess of 1,000 and an average waiting time of two to three years before admission as in-patients; and what other action has been taken to decrease the number of patients awaiting admission.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I apologise for the length of the reply.
    The number of patients on the waiting list was 1,099 on 31st May, 1965; 838 on 31st July, 1964; and 656 on 31st July, 1963. The Newcastle unit is the only comprehensive specialised unit in the region and some of those on the waiting list are from outside the Newcastle area. The regional board recognises the need for expansion of the urological services in the region. It has not yet submitted final proposals but is considering the practicability of providing other specialised units at Sunderland, Middlesbrough, and Carlisle. These developments would take some time to implement, and in the meantime the board has asked general practitioners, through executive councils, to refer suitable cases to general surgery departments.
    Mr. Rhodes: May I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply? Is he aware, however, that kidney sufferers in my constituency are having to wait on an average two to three years before admission as in-patients to this unit? Has not this situation largely arisen through the neglect of the development of hospital services in this region during the last decade?
    Mr. Robinson: I know that the board is well aware of the need for improvement in the urological services of the region and its conclusions about the requirements are expected shortly in my Department. It is true that during the last decade this region was perhaps allowed to lag behind the national average, at any rate in some respects.
    Mr. Randall: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the representations which I made to the previous Government on this matter as well as a Question which I put

    1109
    to the Parliamentary Secretary early in the period of office of the present Government? Is he also aware that now the waiting lists are soaring and that if the statement made by the regional secretary is true, there is no immediate possibility of alleviating the present situation? Can my right hon. Friend put some urgency into getting a long-term solution of this very pressing problem?
    Mr. Robinson: I have indicated the long-term solution. As for the short term, I hope very much that a number of these patients on the waiting list will be dealt with in general surgical departments. This is something which has happened in the past. It is nothing new.

    Mental Health Act, 1959 (Section 29)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the increasing use made of admissions under Section 29 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, as a proportion of compulsory admissions; and if he will take steps to ensure more use of Section 25 with its greater safeguards.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am aware that Section 29 is widely used; a study is being undertaken in my Department and I shall decide in the light of its findings whether further guidance to hospital authorities is called for.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the Minister aware that to say that Section 29 is widely used is not to give a complete picture? Is he aware that it is becoming increasingly more widely used and that this is a Section which was intended for use in emergency only and, in the light of protecting the rights of the citizen, should be used only in those circumstances?
    Mr. Robinson: It is a fact that the admission figures for 1964 show 20,494 Section 29 admissions against 9,810 Section 25 admissions, but to keep the matter in perspective I should add that it was estimated at the end of 1964 that over 90 per cent. of patients in psychiatric beds were receiving treatment informally and only 1 per cent. under Sections 25 and 29.

    Hospital Beds, Tyneside Area
    Mr. Rhodesasked the Minister of Health what his estimate was of the
    1110
    shortage of hospital beds in the Tyneside area in October, 1964; and what his plans are for improving the present position.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The main deficiencies are in the provision for geriatrics and obstetrics. These are not measurable solely in terms of beds, since the need is for new buildings and the modernisation of existing hospitals. The hospital plan now under review includes proposals for the future for a new district general hospital at Freeman Road, Newcastle, and the redevelopment as district general hospitals of the Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle, the Newcastle General Hospital, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Gateshead, and South Shields General Hospital. Major works are now in progress at Prudhoe and Monkton, Northgate and District, Hexham, and Ashington hospitals, and further schemes in the Tyneside area are starting this year.
    Mr. Rhodes: In view of the fact that the area suffers from quite a severe shortage of beds for geriatric cases, maternity cases and cases which my right hon. Friend did not mention, namely, those of mentally sub-normal children, may I ask him to institute an inquiry into the overall needs of the area with a view to bringing forward the building date of the 1,000-bed hospital in my constituency, to which he has just referred? There is an urgent need to develop hospitals in the area, and I think that the years of complacency must be ended very quickly.
    Mr. Robinson: It is for the regional board to determine the needs and the priorities of the Newcastle region. Whilst I agree with my hon. Friend that there are shortages of geriatric and maternity beds in the Tyneside area, these are more than balanced, numerically, by a theoretical surplus at least, of acute beds.

    Hospital Management Committees (Reappointments)
    Mr. Charles Morrisasked the Minister of Health whether he will initiate legislation to amend Part II of the Third Schedule to the National Health Service Act, 1946, in order to make it obligatory for regional hospital boards to provide an individual, whom it fails to reappoint to a hospital management committee, with an explanation of their action.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir.
    Mr. Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what is little more than a conspiracy of silence in regard to this matter can give rise to innuendo and gossip which can be quite harmful to the individual concerned? Is he further aware that, referring to the case which gave rise to this Question, Alderman Miss Lily Thomas, of the Manchester City Council, was removed from the North Manchester Hospital Management Committee in the most perfunctory manner? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the way that this particular piece of legislation is working in so far as it affects individual members of a hospital management committee?
    Mr. Robinson: I am sure that the present practice is right. I made it clear that I do not give reasons for any appointments that I make. Equally, I think that it would be sensible not to give reasons for not reappointing somebody. On the whole, I would think that regional hospital boards were well advised to follow that advice. If they were to do otherwise, they could confine themselves only to a stereotyped and meaningless formula of explanation.

    Hospital Building Programme
    Mr. Mitchellasked the Minister of Health what is the controlling and limiting factor in future plans for hospital building.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The state of the economy and the need to balance all claims on our national resources.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that there was issued from his Ministry on 12th May a circular to hospital boards which says:
    "Review of the Hospital Plan. The first aim of the review"—
    Hon. Members: Reading.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am reading in order that this should be an accurate extract from the—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that verbatim quotation is out of order in a supplementary question.
    Mr. Mitchell: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. What the circular says is that the limiting factor is
    1112
    money. As the limiting factor is money, which seems to be a different answer from the one which the Minister has given, may I ask him whether he is aware that already the abolition of prescription charges has wasted more money than would be needed to build a new district general hospital?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's allegations nor the conclusions which he draws from them. There is very little conflict between what he said the circular purported to state and my Answer. I referred to the state of the economy and the need to balance all claims on our national resources. In one word, I dare say that "money" would be a way of expressing the same thing.
    Mr. Wood: Could the Minister explain why we have to wait until early next year for the results of the review? He has already given this afternoon examples of the Hospital Plan being reviewed. Will not regional hospital boards have made up their minds long before the end of the year as to how they will proceed?
    Mr. Robinson: I want them to do this job thoroughly and to consult local health authorities in doing it. I have asked them to let me have their proposals by 1st November. I have not given any precise date as to when the new programme will be published or any information given of the results of the review except to say that it will be done, I hope, during the first half of 1966. But I think that the boards need till 1st November to do the very considerable job of review which I have asked them to do.
    Sir R. Thompsonasked the Minister of Health when he will publish his revised hospital building programme; and to what extent his hospital plans for the South-East take account of the increase in population and the change in its distribution forecast in the South-East Study.
    Mr. K. Robinson: On publication I cannot add to what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) on 31st May; on the second part of the Question, I must ask the hon. Member to await completion of the current review, but, as I stated in reply to a Question by him on 22nd March, I have asked boards to take population changes into account.
    Sir R. Thompson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that these very long-range plans, especially when they are deferred, tend to be irrelevant when finally they are put into effect? Will he have a project made in his Ministry to make certain that when the plan comes into effect, he will site the hospitals where new populations will live and work? Will he particularly bear in mind the Croydon area, where we have an immense influx of population but, at present, no reason to feel that we will cope with it in a few years' time?
    Mr. Robinson: We are ensuring that regional boards get the best possible population projections to use in their planning. As for planned population developments in the South-East, I rely upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to keep me fully up to date about that.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Can the Minister give an assurance that the building of hospitals which have already been started or are in an advanced stage will be continued without delay?
    Mr. Robinson: I said in announcing the review of the Hospital Plan that I did not want the review to hold up projects which had started or were ready to start. I repeat that assurance.
    Mr. David Steel: Would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that areas which are not development districts will not have their hospital plans prejudiced by the need to provide hospitals in new and expanding areas?
    Mr. Robinson: As I have said before this afternoon, it will be for the regional boards to determine the priorities within their own areas.

    Mental Hospitals (Spastic Patients)
    Mr Dribergasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that two male spastic patients have been transferred from mental hospital to the residential spastics centre at Wakes Colne, Essex, having spent, respectively, 45 and 30 years in mental hospitals because they were wrongly diagnosed as mentally defective, and that it has only recently been discovered that both of them are of average or higher than average intelligence; and what steps are taken, by
    1114
    periodic re-examination of spastic patients in mental hospitals, to avoid a repetition of such errors.
    Mr. Robinson: The general aim of hospital care is, wherever possible, to enable the patient to return to life in the community, either independently or with help from the local authority or other services; and the possibility of discharge is accordingly considered from time to time. I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that the full history of the two cases which I assume he has in mind does not invalidate this statement.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of these two men, now 50 years old, has been locked up ever since he was a child of five and was released only recently as a result of prolonged checking and pressure by the Warden of the Spastics Centre? Is not this kind of thing extremely disturbing? How thorough can the periodic reviews or examinations of patients in mental hospitals be?
    Mr. Robinson: I have seen a Press article about the case to which my hon. Friend refers. The impression that the patient was wrongfully detained and was released through the efforts of a voluntary worker in the face of some medical opposition is, I am very glad to assure the House, completely unfounded. The patient was treated for some years in the cerebral palsy unit of Harperburg Hospital. This unit was set up with the specific aim of dealing with such cases as his, and the staff of the unit can justly feel proud of their success in treating him.
    Mr. Driberg: Does my right hon. Friend claim, therefore, to inform me, that the statements made by the Warden of the Spastics Centre are quite inaccurate and that these two men were not in a mental institution of any kind?
    Mr. Robinson: No. Of course, they were in a hospital for the subnormal. What I said was that the impression conveyed by the article that they were released only by this man's efforts in the face of medical opposition was completely unfounded.
    Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I shall endeavour to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe
    Mr. Cordleasked the Minister of Health in what way provision of accommodation, operating rooms, and toilets at the Boscombe General Hospital falls short of the standard laid down by his Department.
    Mr. Loughlin: Inevitably conditions at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe, parts of which were built over 80 years ago and the main site of which is restricted, do not comply in all respects with the standards laid down for new hospital buildings. Substantial works of modernisation or improvement have recently been completed or are in progress.
    Mr. Cordle: Will the Minister bear in mind the increasing population in the Bournemouth area? Is he aware that old buildings and out-of-date equipment and appliances make for inefficiency and unnecessary delay, thus causing unnecessary suffering?
    Mr. Loughlin: We certainly appreciate what the hon. Member says. In the long term, it is intended that the Royal Victoria Hospital should be replaced by a district general hospital. Although we have modernised and are modernising the existing hospital as far as possible, the only real solution is a district general hospital, and we will get that as soon as ever we can.

    Hospitals, Bournemouth (Commonwealth Nurses and Doctors)
    Mr. Cordleasked the Minister of Health how many Commonwealth nurses and doctors are employed in Bournemouth hospitals.
    Mr. Loughlin: Fifty-nine nurses—including student and pupil nurses—and 18 doctors employed in the Bournemouth hospitals are from other Commonwealth countries.
    Mr. Cordle: In paying tribute to the excellent work of Commonwealth citizens who have reinforced our Health Service, may I ask the Minister what plans he has for attracting a full complement of people from this country to staff what I might describe as our most intimate social service?
    Mr. Loughlin: I am glad that the hon. Member has paid tribute to the Commonwealth citizens, both doctors and nurses, who are engaged in the Hospital Service. They have made, and are making, a great contribution and I, too, pay tribute to them. Obviously, there is a shortage of doctors, and ways of increasing further the intake into the medical schools are being urgently considered. There is obviously difficulty also in the recruitment of nurses, but we have done what was possible. As the hon. Member knows, there has recently been an increase in pay. In the autumn, we will be conducting a considerable publicity campaign to recruit nurses. Frankly, I do not think that it will be possible to eliminate the shortage of nurses and to obviate the need to use Commonwealth doctors and nurses for a considerable time.
    Dr. Wyndham Davies: Would not the Minister agree that a crash programme to open up four new medical schools, as suggested in the Labour Party manifesto before the last General Election, would have helped to solve this problem?
    Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Member is implying that no crash programme was being conducted by the previous Administration. The only way that we shall do this will be to do it gradually. We are considering ways and means of improving the intake of doctors in the medical schools and the recruitment of nurses. I do not see what else we can do.
    Mr. Wood: Will the Minister answer my hon. Friend's question? The Labour Party manifesto mentioned four medical schools. Since the election, we have heard nothing further about them.
    Mr. Loughlin: At least one new medical school is planned. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to quote the election statements, he is tempting us to quote other election statements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] We have been in office for less than a year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It may be too long for hon. Members opposite, but it is not long enough for us.

    Springfield Hospital, Tooting
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Health what proposals he has received from the South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board to amend the

    1117
    catchment area of Springfield Hospital, Tooting.
    Mr. Loughlin: I am informed that the South West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board hopes that in the long term Springfield Hospital will serve a local catchment area in the region.
    Dr. Kerr: In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I particularly emphasise to him, and ask whether he is aware of, the great distance which the doctors of Springfield Hospital are forced to travel in their attempts to provide the essential domiciliary service in their existing catchment area? Will he do everything possible as a matter of urgency to bring the catchment area of this hospital much closer to its existing site?
    Mr. Loughlin: The hospital board is trying to solve this problem. Meanwhile, it is trying to make arrangements with other hospital boards, and that is as far as we can go at this stage.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Pannell, statement.
  Mr. Godber: On a point of order Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether you have received any request from the Minister of Labour to answer my Question No. 68 dealing with the "go-slow" on the railways? May I reinforce my request for a statement by drawing attention to the way in which many thousands of people are suffering great inconvenience at the present time? Should the House not, therefore, be entitled to a statement today?
  Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to say whether we should have a statement or not. What I can say is that I have not received any request to make one. Mr. Pannell.

WHITEHALL AREA (REDEVELOPMENT)
3.31 p.m.
The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Pannell): Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Colin Buchanan were appointed in the spring of 1964 as consultants to advise on the redevelop-
1118
ment of the Whitehall area. Their reports are published today and are available in the Vote Office.
The Government welcome these reports and regard them as the broad framework within which future development of building in Whitehall and Parliament Square areas should take place. They are in sympathy with the concept of a precinct in and around Parliament Square from which traffic not serving the area should be gradually withdrawn.
The Government take the view that plans for removing traffic from Parliament Square must be looked at in the context of London traffic as a whole. They are inviting the Greater London Council, in its study of London traffic problems, to give urgent consideration to the proposed riverside road tunnel between the Victoria Embankment and Lambeth Bridge and also to the Horse-ferry Road route; and then to examine the proposal for a primary road network in Central London.
The Government accept in principle the proposal for a new building for Parliamentary purposes on the Bridge Street site and recognise the need to develop the remainder of the site for Government offices as a necessary part of the redevelopment of the Foreign Office site. Planning will be set in hand as soon as possible. In general, Government building in Whitehall will be planned in accord with the general principles set out by Sir Leslie Martin. Arrangements for execution will be made in the light of the Government's policy of restricting the growth of office employment in London.
Further study will be given to the remaining building proposals in the report.
Implementation of Sir Leslie Martin's plan will not increase the number of civil servants in London. The Government are determined to maintain a policy of dispersing civil servants from London. But economy and efficiency demand that those who must remain in London should be concentrated in Government-owned buildings around Whitehall and ultimately removed from expensive leasehold property scattered in various parts of Central London.
On behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I thank Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan for their imaginative

1119
proposals. The redevelopment of this area, which is the heart of the Commonwealth, may not be completed in our generation. It must be governed by economic priorities. But we must now lay down the disciplines within which the development may be carried out.
Mr. Ramsden: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side of the House would wish to be associated with the thanks which he has expressed to Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan? As the Minister said, they were appointed by Mr. Rippon.
Is the Minister aware that the House as a whole will wish to study this Report before making any further detailed comments on it? In the meantime, I have two short questions to put to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he referred to removing traffic from Parliament Square. Would he care to amplify what is in his mind as to where it should go, and, in particular, his reference to the riverside road tunnel? Secondly, what exactly does he mean by his reference to the redevelopment of the Foreign Office? Is it the Government's intention to demolish the Foreign Office altogether, or to reconstruct it within the present facade?
Mr. Pannell: As the right hon. Gentleman said, it will be necessary to study the Report, and I expect that Parliament will wish to come back to it. If it were possible to build the riverside tunnel it would take 40 per cent. of the traffic off Parliament Square now. It is worth remembering that since 1947 traffic around Parliament Square has increased by 175 per cent., and that if the present rate continues it will double again by 1977, which is a position we cannot tolerate. If I do not say more than that, I hope that we can come back to it. As regards the Foreign Office, a decision on this was taken by the last Government, and we stand by that decision.
Mr. Strauss: I agree that it is impossible to question the Minister on the details of the Report until we have had time to study it. Can he say what opportunity he will give Members who are interested in the subject to question him, and perhaps Sir Leslie Martin, on the details of the Report and to discuss it with them?
Mr. Pannell: I appreciate that this puts the Press in a difficulty, because there has been no pre-release to the Press. It will not be released until four o'clock, because I thought that this being a matter in which Parliament was so intimately interested, and on which at least three Select Committees had been appointed in advance, Members should be informed about it first. But there will be a fairly heavy Press conference this afternoon across the road at Vickers Building, and for Members themselves we are convening a meeting in Westminster Hall at 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday week to which Members of both Houses will be invited. Sir Leslie Martin, and a representative of Professor Buchanan, who is out of the country at the moment, will be present, and we hope that with slides and films we can give the whole subject a thorough going over then.
Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that we, too, wish to be associated with the thanks which he has expressed to Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Colin Buchanan.
Does this Report mean that the Gothic plans which we saw earlier have been interred? Secondly, is the Scotland Yard building included in the redevelopment of the Bridge Street site to which the Minister referred? Thirdly, as office accommodation in Whitehall will be concentrated into a smaller area by the redevelopment of these unsuitable old buildings, will it be possible to provide any residential accommodation in the redevelopment of Whitehall as a whole, and, in particular, residential accommodation for Members?
Mr. Pannell: I should have thought that the last matter was a suitable subject for consideration by a Select Committee of the House, because I have no doubt that a Select Committee will have to consider certain aspects of this Report.
With regard to the second point about Scotland Yard, perhaps I might tell the hon. Gentleman that Sir Leslie Martin considers that this is a building of some worth and should be retained.
As for the question of the Gothic style, I was a member of the Committee which recommended that previously, and perhaps I should make an apologia. The Gothic style was considered when we

1121
recommended a building contiguous to this place, but I do not think it was ever envisaged that if we built across the road we would have another Gothic building. I would only say—and this is a trifle off the beat—that in dealing with the residents of the Palace of Westminster Members should come first. We are building over Star Chamber Court, and trying all we can to increase accommodation for Members near the Chamber. There will come a time when we will have to decide who else goes out of this building.
Mr. Carol Johnson: As my right hon. Friend has indicated a rather lengthy time scale for this massive redevelopment, can he say whether any priority is to be given to the provision of additional accommodation for Members of this House on the Bridge Street site?
Mr. Pannell: My hon. Friend will understand that the Bridge Street site is a prestige site, in the heart of the Commonwealth. If he studies the plan he will see that it is the keystone on which all the rest of the plan escalates—to use a fashionable word. We have to create the sort of accommodation there for which we start bringing people over from the Foreign Office and such places. We have to have an architectural appraisal of the Bridge Street site. As to what can be done for Parliamentary building, and with regard to offices, I
1122
am not in a position to go further than what I have said about that site at the moment, except to say that it has priority over everything else in the plan.
Sir R. Thompson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the buildings which will fall within this Parliamentary precinct, as I understand it is to be, will all have to conform to a certain central architectural discipline in order to be rebuilt at all, whether or not they are in Government ownership? Is that the intention?
Mr. Pannell: No. They will fall into the general disciplines of a plan but I assume that different architects will be appointed from time to time and that there will be some sort of glory and magnificence in variety.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot do any more building now.

SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL (MEMORIALS)
Committee to consider an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will direct memorials to be constructed to the memory of the late right honourable Sir Winston Churchill, K.G., and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expense attending on the same, Tomorrow.—[Mr. Bowden.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Edward Short.]
3.45 p.m.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): This two-day debate, to which the Opposition and the Government have each contributed a day, can be expected to range pretty widely. In opening it, I feel that it may be more helpful to the House that I should not embark—as has sometimes been done in these debates in the past—on a comprehensive tour d'horizon, touching on all the issues of world affairs, but none of them, perhaps, very deeply. Rather I propose to single out three or four major issues which have dominated internationl relations in the past few weeks and months and which must be expected to dominate all our affairs for the rest of this year and perhaps much longer.
The issues which I think, the House would want me to deal with are Vietnam, Malaysia, the central problem of relations with the Middle East, the present situation in Europe, the prospects for disarmament, and measures to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
To choose these subjects means that I shall not be dealing with a number of major issues which hon. and right hon. Members will wish to raise. It means excluding a discussion of the present situation in United Nations, although I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will hope to deal with that if he catches your eye, tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
It leaves little time for discussing the wider problems of the Middle East, including South Arabia and the Gulf States, or the flare-up in Santo Domingo, the question of Spain, the Gibraltar issue, and many other issues which will be in the minds of hon. Members. But as three Foreign Office Ministers hope to take part in the debate if they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I trust that the Government will be able at some stage in the next two days to deal with any questions which are raised.
Before I turn to my main subject, I should like to say a word or two about some of the underlying themes of world
1124
affairs against which these three or four central issues have to be considered.
The first relates to the nature of the challenge that we are facing. I would be the last person to underrate or understate the grave dangers of the fighting in Vietnam escalating into a major land war in Asia, or even into a graver confrontation than that. Nor do I think that there is a sufficiently widespread realisation of the dangers that could occur by any intensification or extention of the confrontation between Malaysia and Indonesia. But, having said that, I should point out that it is clear that the past year has shown us, with growing clarity, how the nature of the world struggle is changing.
We must remain on our guard in Europe; we emphatically cannot afford the luxury of further strains within N.A.T.O. or the further development of nationalism within an alliance whose essence and inspiration are international collective defence. But the very nature of the thermo-nuclear balance in the world—the so-called balance of terror, based on a recognition that either of the two major nuclear Powers has within itself the capability to destroy utterly large areas of the other, and thus of itself and of the world—means that N.A.T.O. must maintain adequate conventional strength in Europe.
Having said that, I submit that the main danger in the world now is a more subtle form of challenge, of penetration, not capable of resistance by purely, or even mainly, military means. We must guard against the temptation to be so dominated by the undoubted challenge and danger that we were facing in the early 1950s that we put all our strength into defending our front door while the back door and the kitchen window are left unguarded. It was this theme which underlay the important speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at the last N.A.T.O. Defence Ministerial Meeting, and I believe that there was widespread recognition that his call for a fundamental reappraisal of the scale and nature of the challenge that N.A.T.O. was facing was timely—indeed, overdue.
We may look at this situation in rough periods of ten years since the war. If

1125
the problem of 1945–55—the first ten years after the war—was to come to terms with the new power situation which followed the defeat of Hitler, particularly the situation in Europe, and then to build up an effective situation of strength based on collective security; and if the dominant theme of the second post-war decade has been that of a world coming to terms with the facts of thermo-nuclear power—with Cuba, in 1962, providing the watershed—it is equally true that that second decade saw the emergence of new problems which I believe will dominate the third post-war decade from 1965 onwards, and, I believe, for many years after that.
This new problem is presented by the emergence of China as a world Power, by the ideological struggle between Russia and China, and by the growth of the so-called National Liberation Movements, not only in Asia, but in Africa and in Latin America. Just as there has been a growing recognition that the military, weapons appropriate to conventional land warfare are inappropriate, irrelevant and even dangerous in the jungle, so there is widespread recognition that political and economic infiltration cannot be dealt with mainly or even primarily by a military approach.
I say quite frankly to the House that this was one of the underlying themes of the recent and, I believe, successful Commonwealth Conference.
Behind all these specific issues which dominated that conference and which featured in the communiqué—such as the Vietnam Peace Mission, Rhodesia, disarmament, Commonwealth trade, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the rest—there was a deeper and more fundamental theme. I probably over-simplify it, but I do not think that I over-dramatise it when I say that what was at stake at that conference, and what is at stake in all the dealings of advanced industrial countries with the newly emerging nations, what was at stake in Algiers and Cairo and actually during the Commonwealth Conference, and what will be of growing importance as year succeeds year is the struggle for the soul of Africa. I hope that there can be no doubt in any of our minds who are the leading nations in that struggle. I hope that there can be no doubt either
1126
that Britain, through history, through geography, through the whole history of our Commonwealth development, cannot contract out of that struggle.
I refer to one other theme to which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition drew attention in opening the foreign affairs debate from this Box a year ago, namely, the rift which has developed between Russia and China. That was one of his main themes last year. I agreed with a great deal of what he said then, though I think that the passage of another year has underlined at any rate one warning which I gave him then. I said that, while I was not underrating the importance of this development, there was a danger in attitudes which might seem to suggest that because of disagreement between Russia and China we might automatically assume—as the right hon. Gentleman at one point last year almost seemed to assume—that Russia's desire for coexistence would cause her to agree more readily with Western policies, the feeling that we could and should play on this rift in the Communist camp. I said then that I thought that this was dangerous, and I think that the whole course of world events since then has proved it.
I do not want to compete with the professional demonologists, be they Kremlinologists, Pekinologists or any other kind, in seeking to analyse the significance of the theoretical and ideological part of the argument. More important, perhaps, is the difference arising from the stage of development which the two countries have reached, the fact that the Soviet Union has vast achievements, vast developments, a vast capital structure—I am not saying a "capitalistic" structure—to defend and has, in consequence, developed a system of society which, making complete allowance for political differences, has become, not least in its functional structure and in its class structure, more and more assimilated to that of an advanced Western country, whereas China, at a much earlier stage of development, is, perhaps, inevitably, more militant and more—as their leaders would claim—revolutionary in her ideological doctrines and, much more important, more revolutionary in her attitude to world affairs.

1127
I think that my warning of last year stands. The very fact that there is a struggle between Russia and China not only for power and influence amongst uncommitted nations, be they in Afro-Asia or Latin America, but, still more poignant in the minds of leaders of Moscow and Peking, a struggle for the leadership not only of the uncommitted world, but of the Communist world, means that, when the strains are at their greatest, as they have been over Vietnam, one cannot assume—as, perhaps, might have been assumed a year ago—that the Soviet Union will then be driven into accepting more and more Western positions.
It is precisely because of this struggle, precisely because of this difference, that we are faced with this great challenge to our diplomacy, and we have to see that we do not force the Soviet Union into positions of competitive militancy which may not be in her long-term interests and which certainly are not in the interests of world peace. I believe that this consideration is one of the central ones in the first main problem to which I now turn, the problem of Vietnam.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House with a long account of the development and history of the present situation in Vietnam, from the 1954 Geneva Agreement onwards. The House will recall that, in our last foreign affairs debate, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with the whole ten or eleven years and, in his admirable Oxford speech which has been widely, and rightly, praised, he dealt with the history of this question with the utmost clarity. He explained, as I tried to do in that same debate last April and many times subsequently, why we have supported the actions of the United States in Vietnam. The American position, which we support, is this—that when conditions have been created in which the people of South Vietnam can determine their own future, free from external interference, the United States will be ready and eager to withdraw her forces from South Vietnam.
This is what they have said, and we support them. This is right, but it can only be as a result of a conference. We
1128
support that too. A unilateral withdrawal of the United States would have incalculable results, first in Vietnam. It would have incalculable results, too, over a much wider area than Vietnam, not least because it might carry with it the danger that friend and potential foe, throughout the world would begin to wonder whether the United States might be induced also to abandon other allies when the going got rough. One has only to look at the map of South-East Asia—rich, fertile, mouth-watering, not in current economic terms, but in terms of temptation to those seeking a wider sphere of exclusive influence.
Again, in terms of great power relationships, a unilateral withdrawal would be held as a humiliating defeat and would make not only countries such as Russia but—let us be frank—America herself, that much more intransigent and tough and determined to see that the experience was not repeated and that much less inclined to policies of co-existence. I think that there is now a growing recognition that the problem of South Vietnam cannot be solved by military means. Military means can prevent an imposed solution, but there can be no victory now. This war will end when that realisation penetrates those capitals which are at present intoxicated by hopes of an early military settlement.
However, if the South Vietnamese Government and people, with their American allies, may not be able to impose a settlement on the Vietcong and the North, equally, it is not within the power of the National Liberation Front, with whatever aid they get from North Vietnam, to bring South Vietnam and the Americans to their knees. Perhaps I am not going too far when I say that the only condition in which there could be a military solution of the struggle in Vietnam will be one which followed a major escalation, possibly a major world war. That would, on doubt, provide a military solution, but such a war might settle a lot of other things besides the position in Vietnam, not excluding the question of the future of human life on this planet.
If the House accepts this analysis, it is a question, by every means open to us, of getting men round the table to secure an honourable and lasting peace. This has

1129
been the central theme of Her Majesty's Government's policy for many months. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, with whom I do not intend to pick any quarrels this afternoon—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"]—in speeches in the North the weekend before last—Why not? Because I think that there were one or two passages there which he would, on reflection, prefer that he had not used. He said:
"I hope the Socialist Government will now recognise that peace is not furthered by opportunism, but by solid, secret work and preparation through diplomatic channels, leading to negotiation."
I wonder what he thinks we have been doing all these months. Let us take, first, our relations with Washington. We have, throughout, been in the closest discussion with the United States Government, one of the main parties to this dispute and to any possible conference. I had long discussions myself, as the House knows, with President Johnson on this matter last December and again in April.
Nor are our discussions limited to the times when the President and I are sitting on the same side of the Atlantic. My right hon. Friend has had many discussions with the American Secretary of State, both in America and in Europe, and all of us have discussed the matter with the American Administration at all levels. While it is true that, in those dark months in February and March, when it was difficult for me to explain to the House what we were doing and what we were urging: at any rate we were able, by April, not only privately but publicly, to express our full support for the President's Baltimore speech in which he called for discussions.
As the House knows, subsequently the President, other American leaders, the Secretary of State, Mr. Adlai Stevenson—with whom I was discussing this Vietnam problem for several hours only nine days ago—all the American leaders, have since April expressed their willingness without conditions to enter into negotiations. At one point they indicated their willingness to suspend bombing policies in order that discussions would take place. We played our part in trying to carry this message through to the North Vietnamese authorities through the channels open to us, but without success.
So much, then, for our diplomatic contacts with the United States. What about
1130
the other side? As the House knows, the Foreign Secretary is, with the Foreign Soviet Minister, a co-Chairman under the Geneva Agreement. In February we urged Mr. Gromyko to take joint action with my right hon. Friend for an approach to all the other Geneva powers as a first step towards a peaceful settlement. After some weeks, indeed on the eve of Mr. Gromyko's visit to London, we were told that it was not acceptable for the Soviet Foreign Minister to join in this approach. Throughout the week of Mr. Gromyko's visit to London my right hon. Friend day after day—supplemented by my own efforts at a two-hour meeting—tried to persuade Mr. Gromyko to join with us in an initiative on the lines we proposed. We failed.
Then, as the House will know, in April we took up the Soviet suggestion of a conference on Cambodia and expressed our willingness to join with them in calling such a conference. Even a Cambodia conference was bristling with complications, including the question of the attitude of certain other states directly affected in South-East Asia. When hon. Gentlemen sometimes express doubts about Mr. Gordon Walker's visit, let me say that to him more than to anyone they lay the credit for getting a general acceptance of such a conference in South-East Asia but we have not so far been able to persuade the Soviet Government to carry out their original intention in joining us in calling it.
On more than one occasion we have tried to use the good offices of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. His proposed peace tour secured the same result as the unofficial visit of Mr. Gordon Walker. The Indian representative was rebuffed, the seventeen non-aligned nations were rebuffed, and France was rebuffed. More recently we secured the almost unanimous Commonwealth support for a Commonwealth Mission on Vietnam, and again Peking and Hanoi refused to accept the Mission.
When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition says that what he calls "opportunist proposals" such as the Commonwealth Peace Mission or the visit of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to Hanoi are "inappropriate, even dangerous", when, as he suggested, in a rather extravagant

1131
phrase that this was the Foreign Secretary falling into the Communist trap, I wonder just how he feels that the secret diplomacy for which he calls can operate in this situation. I hope we shall hear from him about this. Of course, he tells us how successful this was in the case of Laos, but I remind him that even though this took place at a time when Russia and China were both willing to see a conference take place, it took him almost two years to get agreement, including the time for getting the conference established. When we look at the situation in Laos today we can be forgiven for wondering whether it was the unqualified success it is sometimes suggested to have been.
Laos is not a parallel with the situation in Vietnam. The situation in regard to Vietnam is entirely different. It is in part, both in origin and character, a civil war, but it is equally a war that most of us feel would not be sustained and could not be intensified but for the participation of North Vietnam in the fighting both with troops and with supplies. Therefore, Hanoi is the key to this situation. I hope I carry hon. Members opposite with me in the statement that Hanoi is the key to this situation. What I want them to understand is that that key cannot be turned in Moscow. There is no direct line from the West through Moscow to Hanoi. If there were it would have been turned a long time ago, but I assure right hon. Members opposite that there is no possible means for diplomatic appoaches in Moscow to get through to the authorities in Hanoi.
The Soviet position is that the Vietnam situation is one which must be settled between the parties to the fighting—listed by them as the United States and Vietnam, including, of course, North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front, the Vietcong. The Soviet position is that they are not involved in the fighting and, further, that they have not been asked by those whom they support and recognise as allies, namely North Vietnam, to intervene in a mediatory or any other rôle. When the Commonwealth ambassadors went to see Mr. Kosygin about the Commonwealth Peace Mission, he made these points clear to them and he told our representatives that they should go to Hanoi. So, in those circumstances, it is quite impossible for the normal workings
1132
of diplomacy to get through to Hanoi via Moscow.
I hope this will be agreed as one of the basic facts of the situation when we are asked to use diplomatic channels, that we cannot use Moscow diplomatic channels to get at Hanoi. Equally, there is the position of Her Majesty's Consul General in Hanoi—perhaps here I may pay my tribute to him and to his predecessors for the faithful and devoted way in which they carry out their duties in most difficult conditions. Her Majesty's Government—and this, of course, was true of right hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as of ourselves—do not recognise de jure or de facto the D.R.V. Our Consul General therefore exercises purely consular functions, although there have been occasions—nothing like universal—when he has been able to transmit messages, and indeed to get a reply. But there have been other times when, I must tell the House, the absence of diplomatic recognition has led to refusal to receive an important message. It was for this reason—however much we may regret it—that Mr. Ponsonby was not allowed to accompany my hon. Friend in his talks, although my hon. Friend had the valuable benefit of his advice in a whole series of meetings during his visit.
So the impeccable view of the right hon. Gentleman about using diplomatic channels, although I heartily agree with this as a principle, simply will not work as far as Hanoi is concerned. It will not work in this dangerous Vietnam crisis. Unless he is suggesting that we should accord diplomatic recognition to North Vietnam—if that is what he is suggesting, I hope he will make it plain to us, but I do not think he is suggesting it—then I think his criticism is entirely unfounded. What is worse, it might appear to carry with it the suggestion—I am sure he does not mean this—that if we cannot work towards peace by ordinary diplomatic methods, then we ought not to go on working towards peace.
So far I have been talking entirely in terms of the initiatives and approaches necessary to get a conference. This was one of the two declared objectives of the Commonwealth Peace Mission. We intended also, of course, to try to identify the conditions which would make a ceasefire possible. Here I draw a distinction

1133
between what might be called external action on the one hand and a cease-fire in the fighting within South Vietnam on the other. The Commonwealth Peace Mission, with the full support of the Commonwealth—this is in the memorandum for guidance to the Mission, endorsed by the conference and printed with the communiqué—called in terms for

"(a) a suspension of all U.S. air attacks on North Vietnam, and

(b) a North Vietnamese undertaking to prevent the movement of any military forces or assistance or material to South Vietnam."

It was felt that bilateral restraint of this kind would help the Mission in the discharge of its duties. This was in a sense an expression of external intervention. To insist on a cease-fire inside South Vietnam is just as urgent, although to say that this must precede a conference and be a condition of the conference taking place might defer the time at which the conference began to meet. For one thing, to police and inspect a cease-fire in the conditions of fighting in South Vietnam is much harder than to police and inspect external intervention. It is possible, for example, to police, inspect or verify where external bombing is going on. That can be inspected. But, in the conditions of South Vietnam, it is very much more difficult, because incidents like throat cutting and hand grenade attacks on a dark night present different problems of policing. And if one cannot police them satisfactorily, it is always possible that isolated incidents might lead to an outbreak of fighting, mutual recrimination and accusations.
At various times suggestions have been put forward for the kind of settlement to which this conference might lead if we were able to get the conference established. Some have suggested an Austrian-type solution, with neutrality guaranteed by the major powers. Others have suggested a Korean-type solution, with the country divided for a time, with effective defence of the frontier—if that is possible in Vietnamese conditions—leading to an integrated country at a later stage.
Others have suggested—and I think that this is right—a straight return to the 1954 Agreement. I do not think it would be helpful for us to try to decide this question in detail today. This must be a matter for the conference. As I have said,
1134
the main objective of the Commonwealth Peace Mission is to establish the conditions in which such a conference can be held with any hope of success.
What I think is more immediately relevant is the type of conference which should be held. This is something which I hope lies sufficiently in the near future for us to be able to be discussing how it should be done. I do not think there is any difference of view on either side of the House about it. Her Majesty's Government strongly take the view—and this was the view of our Commonwealth colleagues and, I think, of right hon. Gentlemen opposite—that we should be creating the conditions in which Mr. Gromyko and my right hon. Friend, as Geneva co-Chairmen, could convene a conference, whether at Geneva or elsewhere, under the aegis of the 1954 Agreement and under their co-chairmanship. This proposal has the support of the United States, and I think it right to remind the House that the United States Government are ready to accept the 1954 Agreement as a basis for the ultimate solution. The American Secretary of State said on 4th July:
"We would be glad to go to the conference table and take up these agreements of 1954 and 1962 to see where they went wrong and try and bring the situation back to those basic agreements."
I am sure the House will agree with that approach. To sum up the Vietnam situation, I invite the agreement of the House to these propositions.
First, this is a war—and this is inevitable in conditions of modern war, even conventional war—which as long as it continues will bring death, destruction, tragedy and mutilation to thousands upon thousands of people whose only desire is to live in peace with their own people, and who in all conscience have seen enough fighting, fighting on their own homeland, fighting without respite, for almost a quarter of a century. I think that there will be no disagreement with proposition number one.
Secondly, this is a war which carries with it the gravest danger of escalation; of extension to the point where we might, within a very short period of time, see it extended to become a major land war on the Asian mainland. Nor is that the entire extent of the danger which it presents, because my third proposition

1135
is that this is a war the very fact of which is poisoning the whole of international relationships, is halting the hopeful progress towards co-existence on which Eastern and Western nations alike have pinned their hopes and which, if it is allowed to continue, may possibly lead to a reversal of the hopeful trend and a hardening of attitudes which it may take years to break down again. I do not think that there will be any disagreement on that.
Fourthly, a solution to this problem will not be found by military means alone. A decision to defer any hope of a political solution, to deny the means of a political solution, is a decision that the military measures may be intensified with all that that means. I do not think that there will be any disagreement with that proposition.
Fifthly, to get a political solution means getting men round a table. Every effort to do this—whether through the co-Chairmen, whether through the Secretary-General of the United Nations, whether through the French initiative, whether through my right hon. Friend's message to the Heads of the Geneva Conference Governments, whether through the initiative of the 17 non-aligned countries, whether through the initiative of the Commonwealth Peace Mission and subsequent attempts to get acceptance of that Mission—has so far foundered on the unwillingness of Hanoi, and, to the extent to which China accepts responsibility of these matters, of Peking to agree to negotiations. I do not think that there will be any disagreement with that proposition.
Sixthly, all these attempts have established the willingness of the United States, the Government of South Vietnam and of the majority of the Geneva parties to have negotiations. No further diplomatic approaches are necessary with them. That is probably accepted by hon. Members.
Seventhly, the key to the situation is Hanoi, as I pointed out earlier. This is the view of Her Majesty's Government. It is the view of the United States and of the Soviet Union. I hope that I carry hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite with me as well in saying that because, if they agree about this, it brings me to my eighth proposition, which is that there is no means open to Her Majesty's Government and to the vast majority, whether
1136
of Western powers, Geneva powers, Commonwealth powers or of non-aligned powers, of influencing Hanoi by ordinary diplomatic means because diplomatic channels do not exist. I hope that I carry hon. Gentlemen opposite with me on this proposition as well.
My ninth proposition is that, in these circumstances, it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government, and it remains their duty, to seek to get the message through to Hanoi in the hope of getting acceptance, first, for the Commonwealth Peace Mission and, secondly, of getting support for the conference. It is our duty, in these circumstances, to do this by any means open to us, orthodox or unorthodox, conventional or unconventional, regardless of whether we may have to suffer disappointments and what right hon. Gentlemen opposite like to call rebuffs. Again, I would like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with this proposition, which seems to follow from those I have argued.
The outcome of my hon. Friend's visit was a disappointment, due partly, in his view, to a high degree of confidence in North Vietnam—no doubt reflected in China—that time is on their side, that they are winning, that they have more to gain on the battlefield than in the conference room. I believe that this view is tragically wrong, and I think that my hon. Friend's visit and his 16 hours of persistent argument about it may have done something to shake that confidence. I hope it has.
I hope that, in the cooler atmosphere of this debate, recognition will be given to the fact that, in these uniquely difficult circumstances, my hon. Friend's visit represents the first occasion on which we in the West have been able to get a message through. That message was delivered with vigour, with conviction and with sincerity and fluency, if not directly at the North Vietnamese personalities we should have liked, and even if we had to accept Hanoi's refusal to receive Foreign Office officials on the ground that we did not recognise North Vietnam. That was the reason we could not have them there.
Of one thing I am sure; that these arguments have by now got through to the political high command of North Vietnam in a way they have never got through to the leading Ministers there

1137
before. The danger we faced only a month ago when the Commonwealth initiative was announced was of rigidity, fixed positions, inability to communicate and unwillingness to consider fresh attitudes. One thing the Commonwealth Mission has done is to make every country involved think again.
I believe that my hon. Friend's visit, while it has not melted the ice, has caused some cracks and shifting to take place in what seemed solid pack ice. Those who think that these two initiatives were wrong have a duty to explain what they would have done in these unique circumstances to stop the present conflict and the danger of a further drift to war.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Can the Prime Minister say something about Dr. Nkrumah's visit? Is it part of the Commonwealth initiative, or has it been arranged by the right hon. Gentleman, or has it been done solely on Dr. Nkrumah's responsibility?
The Prime Minister: All I can say is that Dr. Nkrumah as well as Dr. Williams and, of course, Sir Abubakar, and I have been in the closest touch from the moment the Commonwealth Peace Mission was appointed and have consulted throughout on all messages, initiatives, and the rest. But until Dr. Nkrumah has given his own reply to the invitation which I learned from my hon. Friend North Vietnam was intending to give, I think that I had better not say anything more. But I would be glad to say something further when we have the reaction of Accra to the particular proposal. I think that within a few hours—probably before this debate ends—it may be possible to say something.
I hope that my hon. Friend will have brought home, not only to us in the outside world but to those in Hanoi, the danger of continuing in a position where they carry so much of the responsibility for the continuance of the war. In this country, and in every other country, there is a great desire for peace in Vietnam. That is a banner—the "Peace in Vietnam" banner—that I hope we could all carry, although it is becoming clear that some of those who shout loudest for it, both here and in other countries, are concerned not with
1138
peace in Vietnam but with victory in Vietnam.
There will be no quick or easy victory for anyone, and a refusal to negotiate now will mean an intensification of the war in which, in the end, inevitably after thousands more have lost their lives, after thousands more have been made homeless, and after innumerable children have been made fatherless, the realisation will slowly dawn that peace will come only at the conference table. If that is what occurs, as I believe it will occur ultimately, the responsibility will lie on those who refuse to come to the conference table. For let us be clear—the enemies of negotiation are the enemies of peace.
I have spent so much time on Vietnam because, as I have said, this utterly dominates world relationships; because it is the cloud overhanging every East-West dialogue. But, as the House knows, we are deeply concerned, deeply involved, in another Asian confrontation—that between Malaysia and Indonesia. Our full support is pledged to Malaysia in its struggle to maintain its integrity as a nation against a country which refused to recognise its very existence. This country, under the previous Government and under this Government, has been unstinting in providing military support, and I want the House to know that although actual fighting has been up to now on a relatively limited scale—and we thank God for that—we should be utterly wrong to dismiss the danger of a much more serious crisis over Malaysia if this issue is not quickly settled. I have said before now in this House why Britain cannot take the initiative in mediation here—I think that it is well understood—but other Asian countries, including Commonwealth countries, may well have a rôle to play as soon as there are signs of a willingness to talk.
Turning from that subject, since I understand that my right hon. Friend will be dealing with the Middle East tomorrow, if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye, I will not go into the vast issues of that region today, save only to say this. Within hours of this Government taking office, the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Gordon Walker, made clear his desire for improved relations with the United Arab Republic. He embarked

1139
on a series of discussions, the so-called dialogue, with the United Arab Republic Ambassador. For our part, we see no reason why the hostility and difficult relations of the years since Suez should be continued into the future, though in saying that we have certainly no intention, as we have made clear, and as I now repeat, in any way of deserting our traditional friends in the Midle East or in any way altering our relationship to the Arab-Israel dispute. As part of our contribution to civilising and improving relations in the Middle East, we envisaged at the earliest possible moment a visit by a senior Foreign Office Minister to Cairo.
This is still our intention and our hope—we want to see relations improved. But one major obstacle stands in the way; and this is the series of subversive and terrorist actions taking place in South Arabia in circumstances which make it impossible for us to acquit Egypt and her friends of connivance, even involvement. We have addressed the strongest protests to the U.A.R. on this question. Many of us in all parties took the opportunity of the entirely helpful and friendly visit of a U.A.R. parliamentary delegation to make this country's position clear a week or two ago. I hope to have another opportunity of doing this tonight because, given an ending of this terrorist campaign, I believe that one of the greatest difficulties standing in the way of a speedy and mutually helpful improvement of relations between Britain and the U.A.R. will have been removed. If it is removed, I should like to pay my tribute to the visit of the U.A.R. parliamentary delegates and to the contribution which hon. Members of all parties in this House made to the success of that visit.
Before I sit down, the House will, I think, expect me to refer to the situation in Europe, and also to say something of our hopes in the forthcoming Geneva Disarmament Meeting. I do not think it necessary for me to add anything to what has been said in this House in foreign affairs and defence debates about Britain's relations with the N.A.T.O. Alliance. We approach its problems in a radically reforming spirit designed to bring closer unity within the Alliance, to create a more effective defence, and
1140
to ensure that it responds to the changing nature of the challenge it is facing. Progress in this matter is slow, and will be slow. I know that the House understands the difficulties—particularly in regard to our own Atlantic Nuclear Force proposals—of advancing further until after the German elections.
But I must make reference to another aspect of European affairs, namely, the strains that have recently developed with the European Economic Community. I hope that we can all agree on this; that no one in Britain, and certainly not the Government, can find any cause for rejoicing in the situation that has developed within the E.E.C. in the past two or three weeks. We have had many debates in this House about whether Britain should join the E.E.C.—or, more precisely, about the terms on which Britain could join the E.E.C.—but, whatever the disagreements, and there have been disagreements within parties at least as much as between them, I think that we are all united in one belief, which is that the success of the Community itself is vitally important for the countries concerned and for Europe as a whole.
I have had occasion in the past to quote the Labour Party's statement, endorsed by an overwhelming majority at the Brighton Conference three years ago. I think it right today, in this present set-up, to remind the House of the opening words of that statement, because they express the views of Her Majesty's Government today as surely as they expressed our views as a Party in 1962. The statement opened:
"The Labour Party regards the European Community as a great and imaginative conception. It believes that the coming together of the six nations which have in the past so often been torn by war and economic rivalry is, in the context of Western Europe, a step of great significance. It is aware that the influence of this new Community on the world will grow and that it will be able to play—for good or for ill—a far larger part in the shaping of events in the 1960s and 1970s than its individual member states could hope to play alone."
Our arguments were not about whether we wished to see the Community succeed, but about the question whether Britain could or could not join it on the particular terms open to us without perhaps fatally compromising our essential national and Commonwealth interests.

1141
We had those arguments, perhaps we shall have them again, but, at any rate, the fact that we have had these arguments about the conditions in which Britain could join, should not detract from our earnest hope that the present difficulties in Europe will be overcome on terms acceptable to the member countries. It is not for us to take sides or to express opinions, still less to exploit this serious difficulty which has arisen for advancing a particular conception or a particular doctrine about European unity or about British participation. I hope no one is going to start saying, "Ah, well, because there are five who hold one view and the others hold another view, we can take advantage of the split between the five and the one." I hope no one will say that an assertion has been made that supranationality is unacceptable and that that fits in with our doctrines, which most of us hold, against a supranational solution in political and defence matters. I think we can be most helpful by not attempting to take sides but by using such influence as we have to make sure that our European friends settle this problem amongst themselves on terms acceptable to them, because by so doing they will not only be helping themselves but peace in Europe.
Our position remains, too, that means should be found as soon as possible to begin the dialogue between E.F.T.A. and the Common Market countries with a view to reducing and ultimately ending the economic and political damage which results from this costly and far from economic division of Europe.
There is no immediate issue of our being asked or being able to join the Common Market, and so we do not need to argue at this moment about the terms. What all of us agree about is the need to get a single trading market for the whole of Europe, first covering the countries of the Six and E.F.T.A., and, as political realities permit, capable of bringing about closer economic relations between Western Europe and Eastern Europe. Equally, we are anxious to play our full part in increasing political unity within Europe on the basis of a growing and more intimate inter-governmental co-operation. My right hon. Friend has repeatedly urged—indeed, we all have—the need for Britain to be in on the
1142
ground floor in any such political discussions.
This review of foreign affairs and the rôle of British policy in the present world scene that I have tried to give this afternoon is inevitably a sombre one. For reasons which I have explained and which are well understood by the House as a whole, we have gone through some very difficult months, not only in direct East-West relations, but in the wider expression of East-West relations in such fields as the United Nations and in disarmament.
My right hon. Friend will no doubt wish to deal in greater detail with some of these questions. But, while our attention in the House has been so highly concentrated on Vietnam in these months, I hope the House will have seen and, indeed, will recall its judgment on the leadership which Britain has been able to give in helping the United Nations to emerge from its difficulties stronger, more united and more effective. After years of doubts about the degree of support that this country was prepared to give the United Nations, when the chips were down, I believe that Britain's acceptance of the U.N. as a cornerstone of our world policy is now recognised by every nation in the world.
If that is true, I believe no one is more responsible than our representative in the United Nations, a member of the Government, my noble and learned Friend, Lord Caradon. The hon. Gentlemen who laugh have identified themselves as the small group of men who do not begin to understand the nature of the world that we are living in. Not only have we taken action to act in accordance with resolutions of the United Nations, not only have we taken an unprecedented lead in pledging logistic support for world peace-keeping operations—the first step to the international police force we have all dreamed of—but, at the darkest moment in the United Nations financial crisis this summer, a crisis where finance was the symbol rather than the cause of the strains between nations, it was Britain who came out with the proposal for an unconditional contribution, and it is now for more nations to follow our lead.
We have played our full part in the Disarmament Commission, and now I think the House will be glad to welcome

1143
the fact that the 18 Nation Geneva Conference is to resume in a week's time. We have a Minister—and I think this is unique in the world—charged with full-time responsibilities in the realm of disarmament. During the weeks and months when hope of renewed discussion seemed dim, he has been active, not only in Whitehall, but in almost constant discussion with our allies, our friends, and with anyone who had anything to contribute in the disarmament field. By setting up a highly authoritative advisory council in this country, including scientists, defence and international experts from the universities, from Parliament and elsewhere, the Government have been able to draw on a wide range of expert advice.
We have been hard at work on the general problems of comprehensive nuclear and conventional disarmament. But we believe that the first and most urgent task must be an agreement to prevent the further spread of nuclear weapons. In our aproach to the disarmament conference, we are reinforced—and I know the House will welcome this—by the powerful and unanimous declaration of the entire Commonwealth, 21 countries, of further proposals and further steps for disarmament and non-proliferation which we issued from our meeting last month.
We have spent these months working on the draft of a non-dissemination treaty which we have been discussing and are still discussing with our Western Allies and which we hope to present to the Geneva Conference. This treaty is not based on any exclusive attempt to preserve nuclear privileges for a small group of powers. It is based on a realistic recognition of the consequences there would be if nuclear weapons were to pass into the hands of more and more states, with all the dangers that a nuclear war by mistake, miscalculation, accident or madness could bring.
We shall press on urgently to extend the plans for a partial test-ban treaty to cover the whole area of nuclear testing, including underground tests. We should like to see progress made towards President Johnson's plan for a freeze of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles, on which both sides have agreed in the past. But we believe that we should go
1144
further with this and link with it a phased destruction of some of these weapons, as well as a freeze on their extension; because, pending a comprehensive and complete disarmament treaty, we believe that it is urgent to make a move towards limiting and reducing nuclear armouries, without destroying or upsetting the present overall military balance.
It is our hope, starting from this conference, to move forward within Europe, and not only within Europe but to achieve, within a maintained balance of military power, areas of controlled disarmament in which there could be agreed and balanced reductions of conventional forces and nuclear-free zones, provided, as I have made clear, they are genuinely nuclear-free, taking into account the missiles trained on an area as well as those sited within it.
A sombre scene, therefore, but one where there are hopes of advance. I believe that it is the duty of Britain to take initiatives in any and every field where they are needed today. I believe that we can claim that in only a few months we have not been backward in doing so—initiatives within the Western Alliance, initiatives to improve relations with France, initiatives towards bridge-building in Europe, initiatives that led to a cease-fire and easing of tension between India and Pakistan over the Rann of Kutch, and initiatives for peace in Vietnam. Wherever one looked last autumn—and I want to make it plain that this is a commentary on the international scene and not a reflection on our predecessors in office, who played their part in moves to ease tension—there seemed to be vast, apparently limitless areas of solid pack ice, rigid, immobile and to all appearances permanent and immovable. I believe that cracks are appearing in that cold front, a thaw here, signs of movement there, and I believe that we as a nation have contributed at least as much as any other nation to those cracks appearing.
I believe that this is a rôle for Britain. Our traditions, the skill of our Diplomatic Service at home and abroad, our pattern of alliances and our unique relationship with a great Commonwealth all fit us for what the world needs today, at least in relation to many of the world's problems, and that is a phase of diplomacy by movement. If I may change my arctic

1145
metaphor, we have tended, in relation to problems not only of East-West tension but of European economics, to dig ourselves in deep in a system of diplomatic trench warfare. Patient preparation through diplomatic channels—yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, where they exist they should be used; and intimate daily contact with our friends and allies in preparation for the next move, yes, that is our policy. But we must have the courage to recognise that some of the great battles in history have been won by recognising the right moment to break out.
What in the right circumstances can be true of a war of movement can be true of a diplomacy of movement. No one is better fitted than Britain to take advantage of open territory—nor to choose when the moment has arrived to embark on it. That, I am sure, has been the traditional rôle of Britain in world affairs throughout history. I am sure that it is the main lesson to be drawn from this serious but not entirely unhopeful review of the world position that I have tried to present to the House today.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Maudling: I think that the House will agree in welcoming the Prime Minister's decision not to cover the entire field of foreign affairs but to concentrate on certain important points. I shall do the same, particularly concentrating on South-East Asia and on the current problems of Europe, which seem to me, as they seemed to the Prime Minister, to be the most important and most urgent ones that we have at the moment.
The Prime Minister also referred at some length to the disarmament situation. All I would say in comment on his remarks on this subject is that I heard nothing in what he said that sounded in any way new, and I thought this was a little disappointing after the promises given some months ago and after the efforts, of which we have so often heard, of the Minister responsible for disarmament.
Another basic point on which I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman arises from the fact that he seems all the time to pursue the theme that initiatives are a good thing whatever the initiatives are. This we on this side do not and cannot
1146
accept. We accept that it is a good thing to make progress towards peace, but we also wish to point out that one can get further away from peace by taking initiatives which are ill-considered, foolish, and doomed to failure.
I want to talk first about Vietnam. It must be agreed, I think, that the object here is to achieve peace, but not peace at any price. Unless it is a peace which establishes a frontier beyond which Communist aggression will not further move, all the efforts will turn out to have been in vain, and all the problems, damage, troubles and tragedy will arise once again a few hundred miles further on.
Mr. K. Zilliacus: Might I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Maudling: No. We listened to the Prime Minister without interruption, and I hope that I may have the same courtesy.
All the lessons of recent years surely point out the truth of this. Frontiers can be established and must be established. In Korea there is one. In Cuba there was another. En Europe, most important of all, there is one if one looks at the wall in Berlin and the wire that surrounds Berlin, with the grim tragedy that all this involves. In every case a frontier has been established. Nothing is more important, with the power of modern weapons, than to establish these clear lines, because the deterrent works—the Prime Minister himself said this—to the benefit of mankind only so long as it deters without being used, and this will be true so long only as the point at which it will certainly be used is clearly defined and clearly understood.
Therefore, I say that the essence in South-East Asia is not only to have a conference but to have a successful conference, not a conference at which the Communists succeed in gaining by diplomacy what they have not succeeded in gaining by force. It is of the utmost importance that the United States of America and its friends and allies, including ourselves, the Australians and the New Zealanders, that we remain united and fully determined not only during the dangerous period of struggle to be faced at the present moment, but also throughout the subsequent conference, because anything that divides us now or then is of the greatest importance.

1147
It is surely clear—as the Prime Minister said—that the Communists, Hanoi and the Chinese, will not talk so long as they believe they can win by fighting. This is the fundamental point. This struck me very much in the talk I had with Mr. Kosygin about this whole situation. It is clearly the belief of his Government that the Hanoi people and their friends now in South Vietnam can handle the situation to their satisfaction with the degree of support already given by Russia and China. But he went on to say to me in very categorical terms that if the Americans extend the war, then volunteers will go from Russia and China. The danger to my mind, as I said to him, is this: "You may say that the Americans cannot win. I tell you that the Americans will not lose." This is the thing that we must establish. It must be established. It must be understood that the purpose of the Americans is not to extend the war—the last thing they want to do is to extend it—but what they are determined on is not to be thrown out.
Once this fundamental fact is recognised, I am certain that a conference can be achieved. It must be in everyone's interest. It is in the interests of this country, obviously, with our commitments in that part of the world and our overall devotion to peace. It must be in the interests of the United States, which, whatever people may say about them, are not there to bring profit to themselves. They are spending their blood, treasure and resources in what they believe to be a just cause. The American Government do not want to stay and fight there longer than they have to. Also, it is not in the interests of the Russians, quite clearly, from the point of view of their influence in South-East Asia, and quite clearly from the point of view of the escalation of the war it is not in their interests to see the continuation of the struggle. It is also not in the interests of the people of Vietnam, who have suffered these hideous tortures for so many years now. Even in China, I believe that once it is realised that the battle cannot be won by force it will be recognised that even for China the escalation of the struggle would bring danger and not profit. Therefore, I conclude that our responsibility in the West now must be to hold firm and give no impression of weakening in any way.
1148
I talked to Mr. Gromyko about the possibility of reactivating the co-Chairmanship as a way of solving the problem. He did not dismiss it entirely but said that it was impossible at present because some countries would not agree. I deduce that once it is clear that a solution cannot be found by force, once it is clear that there must be a conference, we shall have support in re-establishing the co-Chairmanship on an active basis.
Clearly, in that part of the world—the Prime Minister talked about solutions—the solution must be one that establishes a frontier. Whether it be by one form of arrangement or another, it must be a clear definable frontier and one guaranteed, I am certain, by the great Powers. Nothing less than that is going to carry conviction in that part of the world, and any solution which does not carry conviction will not be of any great value.
I turn to the Prime Minister's own diplomatic activities in recent weeks. He tended, I think, rather to resent the criticism that we have made of his initiatives. Therefore, I will explain why we think that what he has been doing has lessened the ability of this country to contribute to a solution in South-East Asia. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may not agree, but this is my belief, and I will explain the reasons why.
The Prime Minister appears to go on the principle "I am for peace. Therefore, anything I do cannot be criticised, and anyone who criticises me is against peace." That came up more than once in his Answers to Questions recently, and it seemed to be popping up again during his argument today. It is clearly a fallacious argument, because, as I said at the beginning, ill-timed and ill-conceived initiatives can do positive harm to the cause of peace.
Secondly, I must say that his technique and his methods have been such as to give the impression that he acts precipitately, without due preparation. They certainly have given the impression, not only in this country but outside, that in the actions that he has taken he has been paying considerable attention to domestic political considerations. [Interruption.] I thought that hon. Members opposite might disagree. Perhaps they have not seen what Dr. Williams, the Prime Minister of Trinidad and Tobago, said on Saturday about the Commonwealth

1149
Conference being a "football" of British party politics. Whether that view is right or not, it is held, and held outside this country, and by a number of people.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that Dr. Williams was also talking about Conservative Governments as well?
Mr. Maudling: That is not a fact. I checked the quotation very carefully. He was talking about the recent conference. He said that it had been the "football" of British party politics and that many other Commonwealth Prime Ministers took the same view. He said of previous meetings that they appeared to exist
"… only … to approve British policy aims and needs."
[Interruption.] There is a difference between British needs and party politics.
The Prime Minister: Will the right hon. Gentleman also recall that, on television, Dr. Williams also expressed the view that this conference was a better conference than previous ones in this respect?
Mr. Maudling: I am quoting what Dr. Williams said to The Guardian. The Prime Minister cannot get away from this one. Dr. Williams made it clear what he was referring to and to the fact that many other Commonwealth Prime Ministers thought the same way. Indeed, the reasons are clear.
The Prime Minister, in a series of actions that he has pursued, has followed courses that are difficult to explain. There was Mr. Gordon Walker's mission, which was, I think, doomed from the start to failure and was a tragedy for Mr. Gordon Walker himself. There was the E.F.T.A. Prime Ministers' initiative, which came from the weekend socialist conference at Chequers much to the surprise of other E.F.T.A. Governments and which finished up, as The Times said, merely by illuminating the differences within E.F.T.A. and between E.F.T.A. and the European Economic Community. There was the Commonwealth Mission, and, finally, there was the recent mission of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, which provides the clearest example of how an initiative of this kind can do harm rather than good.
1150
I leave out many of the obscurities that have arisen about the origin of the Mission—at whose suggestion it took place, what status the hon. Gentleman had, the question of the secrecy and the leak and why the leak took place, the affair of Mr. Murray and the circumstances of the hon. Gentleman's return. There are many things that I leave on one side from the argument in order to concentrate on this one point, because it is of very great importance.
Why did the Prime Minister expect the authorities of North Vietnam to receive the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when they had not received other emissaries? Is it not the case that they expected him to take a different line from that of Her Majesty's Government? This is what worried us on this side of the House. This is what we pressed so strongly because, in these matters, misunderstanding can lead to great danger—and there is a real danger when the North Vietnam authorities receive an hon. Member who has spoken often with great sincerity but with great vigour, about conditions in that part of the world. There is misunderstanding when he goes to see them.
Indeed, my argument has been substantiated by the Prime Minister himself. When asked why the North Vietnam authorities did not after all receive the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, he said:
"I believe that the reason he was not received was that when he got there he spoke so toughly in support of the line we have taken that they decided there was nothing to talk about."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 16th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 789–90.]
If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that, surely from the start there must have been a misunderstanding about the Mission. I do not accept the argument about lack of diplomatic channels. The right hon. Gentleman has put that forward time and again, hoping to trap us into something about recognition of Hanoi. But surely the fact is that if the people in Hanoi want to listen to the British Government they will, and if they do not want to they will not, no matter what the channel is. The Prime Minister confirmed this view today when he said that, on some occasions recently, the Consul-General has been able to transmit messages. That is the point. The Consul-General can do so when the North Vietnam authorities want to listen and cannot do so when they

1151
do not. That applies to every other channel of communication.
On this point, I do not accept the Prime Minister's argument. This particular initiative did no good and can have done positive harm in casting doubt on the views of the British Government and their determination in this matter.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I only want to make one point.
Mr. Maudling: I want now—
Mr. Leadbitter: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. Even if the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) only wants to make one point, he cannot intervene without permission from the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling).
Mr. Maudling: This is a two-day debate and no doubt the chance of the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) catching the eye of the Chair is very considerable.
I want now to turn to the European situation, which I think is the second most important feature in foreign affairs. Our policy as a Government was to join the Common Market. We negotiated to that end. We were disappointed when the French interposed their veto. It was and remains our view that it is in the interests of this country and the Commonwealth that Britain should join the Common Market. Of that, let there be no doubt. Our job now must be to mitigate the damage at present done by the division of Europe and prepare for the future.
Let not these two things be confused, because they are quite different. "Bridge building", which is a term so much used lately, may make sense in terms of mitigating damage, but it makes no sense in terms of finding a long-term solution of the problem. The real present difficulty, of course, is the tariff barriers running across Europe, and the way to deal with that is three-fold.
The first is to try to reduce these barriers through the Kennedy Round. Secondly, possibly after that there could
1152
be schemes for free trade in particular products. There are ways and means of encouraging projects which run across tariff barriers, and these—governmental, private, technical and economic—would all add to the general build-up of progress. Thirdly, there could be common policies towards restrictive practices patents and standards. We should try wherever possible to reach agreement across Western Europe and, where that is not possible, concentrate on keeping our own practices as much as possible in line with those of the E.E.C. All these are right and sensible things to do, but they will not provide the solution because the problems of European division are not economic—they are political and strategic.
The failures of two negotiations—in 1958 and in 1963, for a Free Trade Area and then on our joining the Community—at a very late stage in each case showed quite clearly that the economic problems, serious as they are, can be solved given the political will to do so all round. Therefore, we must start by tackling the problems of the basic political and strategic structure of Europe. If we succeed in solving, them, the economic problems will follow. If we cannot solve the political problems of Western Europe our chances of solving the economic problems become very small. As the Prime Minister rather implied, at the moment there are temptations facing us because of the difficulties that France is causing within the Community—the temptation to say, "It serves them right for not having us in"; to say, "Let us try to agree to something with the other five without France"; or to say, "Let us agree to something with France without the other five."
All these temptations must be sternly resisted because, if we do otherwise, we shall be making no progress in Western Europe. The first and most urgent problem is the military organisation of Western Europe. N.A.T.O. has been a success and the major result of that success has been the shift of the threat from West to East. It is also, I believe, clear that, for a modern defence in modern tehnical terms, particularly in the air, an integrated defence system like N.A.T.O. is essential.
But while N.A.T.O. has proved and continues to prove its worth there have

1153
been basic shifts within N.A.T.O. First, there has been a shift of power and influence across the Atlantic towards Europe, mainly, of course, in the economic aspects. Secondly, there has been a shift in the threat to Western Europe from the European theatre to the Asian theatre. In any reorganisation of N.A.T.O. surely these things and the changing nature of the problem must be clearly borne in mind.
There is the attitude of France and the French Government—and this is one of the most serious factors in the situation—who appear determined to destroy the present structure of N.A.T.O.—not the Alliance but the integrated command structure. I have even heard it described by leading French statesmen as being a form of military occupation.
Then there is the position in Germany which is also extremely complex. During a recent visit I discussed it at great length with Dr. Erhardt, Herr Willi Brandt and Herr Schroeder. One must recognise that the problem in Western Germany is basically a psychological problem. There is the real and genuine fear in Germany that if a war should come the battle would be fought across the heart of Germany before the full power of the allied deterrent was brought to play. This is a genuine fear which we must respect. It has led some Germans to support the idea of the force de frappe, not because it is strong or convincing in itself, but because they think that it is a way of compelling the Americans to come to the aid of Europe at the right time.
Then there is in Russia the extraordinary fear that somehow or other the West Germans can once again cause international war, and the Russians seem impervious to the argument that now Russia is so strong in military terms that she could crush Germany at one blow. This is a fear which is just as real and just as dangerous as the lingering fear in Western Germany of what the Russians can do.
The tragedy of Europe is the extraordinary lack of direct communication between the two halves and the unrealistic but nevertheless definite fears on both sides of the Iron Curtain. In framing Western European strategic considerations these are factors which must
1154
be taken into account—these and the need to avoid proliferation and to get somehow control over the dissemination of nuclear vehicles. The solution for Western European strategy must be some form of integrated command. If we move beyond that a great deal is lost, but it must be an integrated command system which, on the one hand, guarantees the Germans that they will be defended in good time and, on the other hand, at the same time guarantees the Russians that the position of West Germany will not be such that the West Germans can themselves initiate any attack which must be disastrous. On these lines we must tackle the problems of N.A.T.O. and, when we do, we shall make the way much easier and more open for a European economic community including Britain.
The second point is the political organisation of Western Europe. Here again General de Gaulle recently has been of great service because he has brought clearly to the foreground the real problem of European political union which has not yet been fully thought out. One hears arguments between supporters of a Europe des Patries and the Federalists conducted at many levels, but there is too much generalisation. This argument of principle between the two sides is not sufficient unless it is built up with arguments on a far more pragmatic plane. Those who support the Europe des Patries concept are making unreal assumptions about the disappearance of European national consciousness. There is still much Welsh about the Welsh and much Scotch about the Scots after many years of union. As a result of the economic development of the European countries, the need for central decisions, often of a political character, has become quite definite and cannot be avoided.
On the other hand, I think that the federalists are a little unrealistic in that their point of view is not in practice generally acceptable and in modern conditions is based partly on a false analogy with the United States. Great Powers will not accept a federal conception. This is becoming apparent. Nor is this necessary at this juncture. There is need for Europe at present to concentrate on a new and pragmatic approach. Let us isolate the problems which must be decided at the centre.

1155
When one looks at the facts, and the economy of the Community in particular, one sees the problems of common reserves, of common currency emerging, the need for a common policy to deal with the pressure of demand in a single integrated market. All these problems are bringing forward matters for decision which much be decided centrally. It may be that the machinery for it will take the form of a Council of Ministers with a majority vote. It may be that decisions could be made in a European body such as the Commission, in which case surely Parliamentary supervision in some form or another would be required. These are the fundamental problems which Europe has to tackle at present.
What is meant in practical terms now by European political unity? We the British with our pragmatic approach can make a great contribution to this discussion now and in the future. Let us add to the theoretical arguments the essential adjuncts of a pragmatic approach to problems which must be decided centrally and to the means by which they can be decided centrally. If we adopt this approach to these two major military and political themes we shall find the economic issues falling into place behind them. It is of fundamental importance that we should not argue the old sterile economic problems but let them fall into place in circumstances where there is for the first time a real and universal will in Europe to agree on a fundamental solution.
The Prime Minister referred to the United Nations and sought unsuccessfully to cast some doubts on our attitude to it. Any sane person wants to see a world ruled by law. When one looks back on the history of individuals and states it is interesting to note how progress took place from individual self-defence to community self-defence and to a real rule of law. This took many centuries in individual states and will take many a long year between nation states. We should be foolish to overlook this.
At the same time, the structure of the United Nations is stronger than that of its predecessors in that it recognises the basic fact that in the modern world one must distinguish between particular people and particular Powers. It is on the united action of the strong Powers that
1156
the peace of the world depends, and the United Nations is a machinery to ensure that this is fully utilised.
The problem in foreign affairs in the coming years is to ensure the agreement of the great Powers and to ensure that they are together prepared to use their authority to ensure peace is maintained and that the proliferation of means of destruction is avoided. This is the ultimate goal. This can only be achieved fully when we have agreement in Vietnam. We can only achieve progress now in Vietnam by holding firm. It is only by making sure that we do not waver and by making apparent that force cannot triumph that we shall succeed.
5.7 p.m.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in his negative and controversial speech. He made it quite plain that he at least thinks of foreign policy in party terms. I resented particularly the denigrating words which he used about my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. My hon. Friend, with his broad knowledge of South-East Asia, with his acquaintance with the personalities of all parties there, with his warmth and his sincerity, was the best delegate that we could have found to send to Hanoi, and I remain absolutely convinced, in spite of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that his visit was right and that it did a power of good.
I want to deal mainly with three areas where in recent months there has been the use of force. I want to argue that the United Nations should have been more freely used to bring the fighting to an end.
Since this Parliament was elected nine months ago, the world, as the Prime Minister said, has been in the state of crisis which he described. All the issues of which he spoke have helped to spread anxiety and distrust throughout the world. Speaking on 16th December last, Lord Butler, now the Master of a great college in Cambridge, recalled that on the Address there had been no debate on what he called:
"the vital issues of life and death which are involved in the conduct of foreign policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December, 1964; Vol. 704, c. 402.]

1157
He was opening a two-day debate on foreign affairs. In fact, most of that debate was given over to the A.N.F. and to other matters more closely connected with defence. Since then we have had one day on foreign affairs-1st April.
In all the long weeks since then, with all the changes which they have brought, in Vietnam, Malaysia, Santo Domingo, and the Middle East, we have had no discussion on foreign affairs. Since October, we have had no debate on Article 19, and we have had no debate on disarmament at all. I am second to none in my support of the Government's domestic legislation, and I do not blame the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House in the smallest degree for the procedure of the House as it is today. But I say, with great conviction, that the British Parliament is robbed of one of its historic functions, if it cannot voice its views on world affairs. The case is worse on these "vital issues of life and death", because there have been very few significant international debates in the U.N. There has been no serious sustained attempt to use the law and machinery of the U.N. to seek a settlement of the dangerous wars now going on.
I venture to remind my right hon. Friends that the U.N., in the phrase of General Smuts, is not "a fifth wheel in the diplomatic coach". It is a new method of dealing with international affairs, a Parliamentary method, a method of public debate. I am not theorising when I say that this method, when it has been used by competent Parliamentarians who had the authority of high office, has proved a very remarkable success. I was with Robert Cecil when he used world opinion in the League Assembly to drive Mussolini from the Greek island of Corfu, which Mussolini had occupied and firmly intended to annex. I saw Austen Camberlain bring France and Germany to agreement on a vital issue in the Saar after months of private diplomacy had failed. I was with Ernest Bevin in 1946 when, by public debate, and by refusing to go into private, he drove the Russian armies from the Northern provinces of Iran.
We all saw President Eisenhower use the United Nations in 1956 to end the Suez war. We all remember how Mr. Khrushchev's troika died in the flames of a General Assembly debate. I could
1158
give scores of illustrations to show that Robert Cecil was right when he said that "publicity", meaning debate in public, open to the Government, the Press and the peoples of the world, "publicity is the life-blood of the League". Experience has shown that world opinion, what President Johnson calls a consensus, is the greatest force in human affairs.
I want to make some suggestions to my right hon. Friends as to how this force might be used to ease the tensions that now afflict mankind. First of all, I want to deal with Santo Domingo. Halyard Lange, Foreign Minister of Norway since 1945, said in the N.A.T.O. Council here the other day that, while the Vietnam war might escalate out of control, he nevertheless thought that the situation in the Dominican Republic was "even more dangerous".
What happened there? On 24th April a popular revolt, led by Colonel Caamano, broke out against the military junta which had torn up the democratic constitution and driven out President Bosch eighteen months before. The junta, led by General Imbert, were being overwhelmed. In a few short hours President Bosch might have been recalled. But the lives of foreigners were being endangered. President Johnson ordered a small party of United States marines to land and rescue them.
That was a violation of the Charter of the Organisation of American States. Article 17 says in terms that
"territory of any American State may not be an object, even temporarily, of military occupation or other measures of force taken by another State, directly or indirectly, on any grounds whatever."
All the loopholes are closed.
But while his action was on purely humanitarian grounds, President Johnson's action could be defended by arguments drawn from customary international law. However, within a few hours President Johnson destroyed that legal defence. In pursuance of a carefully mounted plan, he sent in 30,000 United States troops. He said he had done so because Colonel Caamano's movement had been taken over by Communists. Pressed for details, the President said that the Central Intelligence Agency had drawn up a list of 58 known Communists who were the leaders and the driving force of Colonel Caamano's movement.

1159
That was the only evidence adduced to justify the President's illegal act. Let us look at it to see how it appears today. There were more than 30,000 men in arms, Dominicans, in Colonel Caamano's movement. It seems unlikely that 58 outsiders could play a very important role. United States journalists in Santo Domingo made strenuous efforts to identify the 58. I have the testimony of some of them here, all staunch anti-Communists themselves.
They were given stories of meetings between Colonel Caamano and the Communists, which they found had never happened. They were told of three Communists to whom Caamano had given important jobs. Mr. Kurzman, of the Washington Post, checked on these three men. One has a diehard Conservative another was a naval officer and a Conservative, and the third was a 15-year-old boy. Others of the 58 had never been in Santo Domingo at all. The so-called evidence of the C.I.A. was a fabrication. Three weeks later Mr. Averell Harriman, who had just completed a tour of Latin America, said on television:
"There is no contention now that Colonel Caamano today is dominated by the Communists."
The next day, 18th May, the Washington correspondent of The Times wrote as follows:
"The effort to prove that the rebel constitutionalists were about to be captured by Communists is now seen to be ludicrous".
"Ludicrous"!
In the same message he said that General Imbert's
"JUNTA, which earlier enjoyed the protection of American arms, is now seen to be the step-child of the murdered dictator, Trujillo."
In other words, President Johnson acted at the invitation of a gang of Fascist generals and on information furnished by the C.I.A.
Just reflect on the recent record of the C.I.A.—the Bay of Pigs adventure, exposed yesterday, in all its squalid details, by Mr. Arthur Schlesinger in the Sunday Times; the "opium army" of Chinese Nationalists in Burma; the deposition of the neutralist Prime Minister of Laos, Prince Souvanna Phouma, whom President Kennedy had to bring back to power; their dark deeds in Vietnam.
1160
What did President Johnson do on the fabricated information given to him by the C.I.A.? He violated the Charter of the O.A.S.—I have read the terms of Article 17. He violated the Charter of the United Nations—not only Article 2(4), but Article 53, which says:
"No enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements, or by regional agencies, without the authorisation of the Security Council."
In a few hours President Johnson destroyed the work of decades in building up Franklyn Roosevelt's "good neighbour" policy. Three Latin American statesmen in the last three weeks have hold me that that policy has been compromised for many years. For nearly a month he allowed the United States generals in Santo Domingo to give help and succour to General Imbert; to give him money; to allow him to make attacks on Caamano's forces from points of great military advantage, until it was being freely said that Caamano could not last for long.
Then on 22nd May—the Foreign Secretary will remember it—something happened. It was headlined in the Press as follows:
"Britain takes an independent line."
The British delegate in the Security Council, deaf to United States pleas and protests repeated all day long that the United Nations should keep its hands off and leave it to the O.A.S., asserted instead the authority of the United Nations. He proposed a resolution calling in the name of the United Nations for a total and permanent cease-fire; and he said that that must be followed by the wider United Nations action which would be required. In the course of the debate in the Security Council, the British draft was replaced by a simpler, more categorical resolution drawn up by the delegate of France. The French resolution was adopted by ten votes to nil. Only the United States abstained.
The results were startling. On the morning of that Saturday, General Imbert was saying loudly to journalists at large that there would be no cease-fire, that he would fight; he would destroy Caamano and his Communists. By the evening of that day, after the United Nations vote, he had changed his tone. He said, "I will keep up my guard. I won't fight, unless I am attacked". Evidently the United States generals in Santo

1161
Domingo had told him that he must make the change. From that day his dangerous aggressions virtually ceased. Much more important, the ten to nil expression of world opinion changed the whole policy of the United States. Very soon they were calling on Imbert to withdraw. They are working now, it seems, for a return to constitutional Government, for free elections, perhaps with the return of President Bosch.
I believe that that followed from the Foreign Secretary's assertion of U.N. authority on 22nd May—on his independent stand. I ask him this question: Suppose that he had gone himself to the Security Council at the very beginning. Suppose that he had said, "I am here as a member with a permanent seat—not as the delegate of Britain only, but as a trustee of all the nations of mankind". I heard A. J. Balfour expound that theme in the Council of the League of Nations in San Sebastian many years ago.
Suppose that the Foreign Secretary had said, "I am here, as a trustee of all the nations, to uphold the Charter, the integrity of which is the most vital interest of us all. In pursuance of Article 53, which lays a clear duty on us all, I propose that the Council shall call now for a total and an immediate ceasefire and that it shall send a high-powered delegation to the Dominican Republic to help the parties to return to constitutional government without delay". Suppose that, with the authority of his great office, and with his great debating power, he had taken that independent stand at the beginning of May. I believe that he would have had behind him not only Latin America and Canada, not only the Commonwealth and France and Norway and perhaps all our other N.A.T.O. Allies; he would have evoked a world consensus in which I am convinced that President Johnson would have speedily concurred, when he had come to understand the facts.
If the Secretary of State had done what I am suggesting, he would have set a precedent of vast importance for the future of the United Nations. He would have had to say that the United Nations had ultimate authority, and not the O.A.S. Yes; but that is precisely what he did say on 22nd May. It would
1162
have been no harder, and it would have been far more efficacious, if he had done it at the start. He would have done just what President Eisenhower did to Britain in 1956, when he used the General Assembly to save us from the dire results of the lamentable mistake which we committed then.
I will deal more briefly with the two other wars where I believe the law and the machinery of the U.N. might be usefully invoked.
The facts about the confrontation in Malaysia are very simple. Indonesia has 100 million people. It is very rich in natural resources. Malaysia has 10 million people, one-third of them Chinese. In January this year the Malaysian delegate told the Security Council that in the previous 12 months, from the end of 1963, there had been 200 "incidents"—that is, armed clashes—an average of four a week; that Malaysia had suffered 100 casualties in her forces; that 500 Indonesians had been killed or captured. There are also 50,000 British troops on the battle front in Malaysia, and some of them, including some of my constituents, have lost their lives.
In August 1964, the defence correspondent of The Times wrote that this was a war which could not be won. In March this year, General Walker, who was in command, said that it was getting tougher; the Indonesian professional army was taking over from the original volunteers. In April a new defence correspondent of The Times said
"This is a war, and it is our war";
and he added:
"The battle here will not be won with standing armies, but with better communications, with roads, and hospitals".
Nobody knows what President Sukarno is seeking in mounting his attacks. Sometimes he says that he is against, not Malaysia, but colonialism, by which he means the British troops in Borneo and the British Base at Singapore. In February he said that he would accept a new United Nations referendum to determine whether the people of the Borneo territories are satisfied to belong to Malaysia.
Of course, he has no right to put forward any such demand. There has been a United Nations inquiry which U Thant himself controlled.

1163
But it is of supreme importance to the people of Malaysia that, somehow, this confrontation should be stopped and that their relations with their powerful neighbour should be based on confidence, co-operation and mutual trust. I believe all these things should be thrashed out in the United Nations. I cannot think that it right that in these long years of war there have been only two brief discussions in the Security Council, on 15th September, 1964, and 5th January this year. That is not the way to mobilise opinion against aggression. It is not the way to sift the merits of the case. It is not the way to devise the conciliatory and other action which the United Nations might take.
There are various kinds of action which the United Nations might take. It might send teams of United Nations observers to check the Charter-breaking raids; observers have been most effective in other areas of the world. It might send a high-powered commission of international statesmen to investigate and to report. It might help more with roads, hospitals and schools, if that is what matters, as The Times man says. Certainly, the United Nations should consider carefully whether a voluntary U.N. peacekeeping force on the Cyprus model could be raised.
The Malaysian Deputy-Prime Minister tentatively put that proposal forward not long ago. If it could be adopted, who believes that the Indonesian aggressions would go on? Britain and other nations could afford very generous contributions for the sake of peace. Of one thing I am immovably convinced. It cannot be right, month after month, to go on drifting, with the fighting growing fiercer and the United Nations machinery unused. That must inevitably undermine the Charter and the rule of law. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will find the way to put us on a new and better road.
I turn briefly to Vietnam—briefly, although, by rights, it should have had long days of discussion to itself. I have long believed that President Johnson wants peace in Vietnam on terms that would satisfy us all. I quote a speech which I quoted in The Times this morning, the first major speech made by President Johnson as President of the
1164
United States. He made it to the General Assembly of the United Nations and he said:
"We are more than ever committed to the rule of law—in our land and around the world. We believe more than ever in the rights of man, all men of every colour—in our own land and around the world. And more than ever we support the United Nations. … I leave with you today my unswerving commitment to the keeping and the strengthening of peace."
Hon. Members will recall that in 16 months of office, the President fulfilled the first part of that pledge. By March this year, the civil rights programme had become the law, and he crowned his triumph by a speech in Congress that was among the greatest ever made.
On 7th April, President Johnson made another speech, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has referred, a speech at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, about Vietnam. He offered unconditional discussions with a view to peace and he did so in such majestically persuasive words that almost all the world was swung over to his side. Next day, 8th April, the Government of Hanoi made an answer that came near to saying "Yes" to unconditional discussions. Even the Government in Peking hesitated for four days before it answered "No".
What has happened since 7th April? Why did that great proposal fail? First and foremost, it was because the President took wrong advice about the use of military power. The bombing of North Vietnam went on. The White Paper on 18th February, which sought to prove that there was no civil war but only international aggression—a White Paper at once naïve and disingenuous—destroyed all trust among the other side about the United States' ultimate objectives. Today, alas, the President's authority is much diminished. The danger of major escalation is much increased. The Pentagon is asking for 180,000 solidiers in Vietnam. Will China sit by idly if that should happen?
What can be done to restore the hope of peace? I attach the highest possible importance to the Prime Minister's Commonwealth mission. I believe that he and the Foreign Secretary would much increase its power if they could use the General Assembly of the United Nations as I will now suggest. They would have to go there, not for days, but, if they

1165
wanted results, for weeks together. I recall that the late Arthur Henderson, the father of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), when he was Foreign Secretary, used to spend two months a year in the Council and the Assembly of the League. If the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were to go to the General Assembly, if they were to raise a great debate about Vietnam, I believe that they could evoke an almost irresistible consensus of agreement on the following points, some of which have been mentioned by the Prime Minister this afternoon.
First, further fighting, as the Prime Minister said, cannot advance the warring parties towards a satisfactory peace. Second, to create the atmosphere for profitable negotiations, the bombing of North Vietnam should forthwith cease. Third, a ceasefire should follow with the least possible delay. Fourth, a conference should meet even before the ceasefire had taken effect. Fifth, at that conference all parties to the fighting, including the Vietcong and the N.L.F., should be admitted. Sixth, a settlement should be made of which the cardinal point would be that North and South Vietnam should be guaranteed against aggression and should be neutralised, with no foreign troops or bases of any kind. Seventh, in due course the people of each part of the country should be allowed to carry out the elections provided for in the Agreements of 1954, under international supervision, as then foreseen. Eighth, the people of North and South Vietnam would then themselves decide whether and on what terms they wanted to unite. Ninth, a programme of economic aid would follow, administered, as President Johnson has so generously proposed, not by the great Powers, not by the donors, but by the United Nations, a programme which should embrace the people of North Vietnam to the degree that the people of that territory might desire.
I believe that there is no point in that programme which would not have the overwhelming endorsement of the General Assembly as a whole.
In all that I have said I have asked my right hon. Friends to mobilise opinion for the rule of law, and to do so through the institutions of the United Nations.
1166
Opinion is an instrument more potent than any stock of bombs. That proposition is the rock foundation of all democracy, in both national and international affairs. In the last months and years the instrument of opinion, in my view, has been under-used. I have asked my right hon. Friends to use it in a bold and in a daring way. I have done so because we are in a very dangerous situation. Small and timid measures will not meet these dangers. Someone said the other day that two years ago we were rejoicing in the new "hot line" between the Kremlin and the White House, but today the "hot line" lies unused; only the guns are speaking. I hope my right hon. Friends will bring the guns to silence by voicing the aspirations of mankind.
5.41 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: The continuing purposes of British foreign policy remain the preservation of peace, the defence of freedom, and the protection of our own interests. What we have continuously to reconsider is our strategy for attaining those purposes and for resolving possible conflicts between them. We can seldom act independently. We must play our part within one of the international groupings such as the United Nations, the Western Alliance, the Commonwealth area, Europe. All these groupings have different possibilities and different purposes.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) has put in an eloquent plea for more use in the present situation of the machinery of the United Nations. I would not disagree with him in some of the criticisms which he has made over American policy in Santo Domingo, but I fear that by asking the United Nations to do more than it can bear we may in fact do that organisation more harm than good. I do not agree that where the interests of one of the super powers, such as America or Russia, are ultimately involved the United Nations is capable of solving that situation. The right hon. Gentleman asked our Foreign Secretary to go to the United Nations and announce that he was a trustee of all the nations. Now, I am afraid that the world's view of Britain is not as complimentary or as simple as I sometimes think the right hon. Gentleman believes, and I personally—
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I apologise for interrupting, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman got my point. I said that as the holders of a permanent seat we were there as the trustee of all the members of the United Nations.
Mr. Grimond: I do not see that that is at variance with what I said, but if I have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman I hope the House will take his correction.
I understood him to say that as the holder of a permanent seat we should speak in the name of world opinion. I wish we could; but I fear that, for a number of reasons, that would not receive that universal assent which he thinks it might. I do not believe that the Communist world would simply assent to it as a self-evident truth. I doubt if other groupings of the world would assent to it either.
The right hon. Gentleman called upon the United Nations to take a more active part in the troubles in South-East Asia and South Vietnam. As far as I know, U Thant has tried to go to North Vietnam and has tried to get a conference and has been rejected. Who by? By the North Vietnamese themselves. I do not see much good in talking vaguely about the rôle of the United Nations unless we can pin this rôle on to particular nations within the United Nations and try to discover where responsibility for its failure lies.
One of the reasons why it is comparatively weak today is too few nations will pay for it. It is not the British who will not pay for it; it is not the Americans who will not pay for it. To criticise the Americans entirely for failing to use the United Nations and make not even a passing reference to the Russian and Communist view of the United Nations seems rather one-sided. To say that the United Nations succeeded in making us withdraw from Suez is true, but the United Nations was singularly unsuccessful in getting the Russians to withdraw from Budapest. I do not think we can truly accuse the Western world of sabotaging the United Nations.
So far as the Foreign Secretary himself is concerned, I have not checked his recent speeches, but I think he has made it perfectly clear that Britain would wel-
1168
come with open arms an initiative by U Thant or anybody else in the United Nations if there were any chance of its being successful in North Vietnam. He is here, and he will correct me if I am wrong but I think he said that if the situation allows of it we must put forward the idea that there should be a massive programme of aid and development in South-East Asia through the United Nations.
Therefore, I do not agree that we can accuse the Western nations of being the members who are foremost in weakening the United Nations. Nor do I think that in the present situation it would be fair to expect the United Nations to resolve the type of conflict in which we are involved.
This leads me on to two points about the state of opinion in this country. It seems to me that we are suffering from two illusions. First, that although we are one of the major debtor nations of the world with very little to spare in the way of military strength, and a considerable history of diplomatic reverse—for instance, Suez and the Common Market—we are in a position to lecture the world and to produce some immediate solution of its problems.
Secondly, we seem to be under some illusion that a situation such as that in Vietnam can be cleared up in a few months or even in a few weeks. We have still to come to terms with our own destiny.
I was struck by the brevity and indeed the blankness of the remarks by the Prime Minister about the situation in Europe. He expressed the hope that in spite of setbacks the E.E.C. would succeed, but I heard no statement of intention about what we would do, I heard no move in the Government's attitude away from the attitude founded on the five principles laid down three years ago or so by Hugh Gaitskell. I would have thought that, to meet two major interests of British foreign policy, defence of freedom and defence of our own economic and political status in the world, we must get into the Common Market. The basic reasons for this have been put forward often enough by Liberals and by others and so I do not intend to reiterate them in detail today, but I do say this, that certainly it is

1169
desirable that the old divisions of Europe should be healed, and surely no one could deny that the scale of modern politics, the scale of modern defence and industry, make it essential for us to be inside the E.E.C.
Let me make this point: were we inside the E.E.C., instead of groping after export markets we should have a very large and a very rich home market, and there would be all the difference in our situation.
Where, as I understand it, those who take the opposite view from me differ about going into the E.E.C. is over the surrender of national sovereignty. But how grave an objection is this surrender of national sovereignty? Certainly membership of the United Nations and of N.A.T.O. requires some surrender of national sovereignty. Though it is important it seems to me that it is in danger of being distorted. The language about independent foreign and economic policies seems to me often empty of content. Britain would certainly be able to pursue a more independent economic policy were she freed of her debts, but it would be more likely if she were inside rather than without a large economic unity such as Europe. One of the very things which limits our influence in the world is our balance of payments position, one of the very difficulties about our balance of payments position is that we have not got this large market.
Therefore, this argument that we would in some way limit our field of action if we were to go into Europe seems to me to have no real meaning. In any case, the surrender of sovereignty within the Six is going to be slow and limited. The proposals for a Community budget are hedged about with all sorts of safeguards, and, as was said by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), there are many practical problems which require solution and which will need a certain pooling of sovereignty, but which do not imply a sort of philosophical total surrender of one's rights and freedoms. But what independence of action can we retain alone, even within the Commonwealth? I shall return to the political rôle of the Commonwealth later, but, as far as economic action is concerned, the old argument that the Commonwealth could be an economic alternative to the E.E.C. has largely disappeared.
1170
Some people see in the stresses which have developed within the Six a chance to work for a more loosely articulated Europe which they believe it will be easier for Britain to join. They wish to see an economic union between E.F.T.A. and the Six as an alternative to the E.E.C. and the Treaty of Rome. I believe that it would be fatal for Britain ever again to appear to be putting forward E.F.T.A. as an alternative to the Six. I believe that that did immense damage in Europe and should never be repeated.
The only possibility of any useful coming together of E.F.T.A. and the Six lies in, first, a firm declaration that we want to get into the Six. When it is clear that that is our main objective, there might be valuable negotiations between the E.E.C. countries and the E.F.T.A. countries. I am advised that the interests of the individual E.F.T.A. countries differ in their relationships with the Six, and therefore the negotiations might be better carried on individually than as a whole.
Mr. E. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that all we have to do is to state our objective, that we desire to enter the Common Market and negotiations will take place? Have not we gone through that phase before? Why does he suggest that by going into the Common Market we can solve our balance of payments problem? Has that happened in the case of Italy?
Mr. Grimond: As regards the first question, of course I do not believe that it will solve all the difficulties, but I suggest that it is a prerequisite to beginning to solve them. Unless Britain makes it clear that she wants to get into the Common Market, and is prepared to accept the implications of that, all the negotiations will fail. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to go into the Common Market. I have this argument with him every time we debate foreign affairs. The right hon. Gentleman wants to make friendly noises to Europe and then lay down conditions which will make it impossible for us to get in.
Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He has taken part in debates on this subject over the years, as I have done. I am not concerned about the loss of sovereignty to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. I agree with what he said about N.A.T.O.

1171
and about joining an international organisation. There is some loss of sovereignty, but here something else is proposed, namely, a supranational Government and a supranational Parliament. That is the basis of my objection.
Mr. Grimond: If the right hon. Gentleman reads the reports of the negotiations on the Common Market he will realise that that is not what is proposed. That may come in time but this is not the moment for it.
What we want to do immediately is to open up a much larger market for our exports, and for this reason alone there is a strong case for going into Europe.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer rose—
Mr. Grimond: I cannot give way. I must get on, and others want to speak.
I believe that we should take up what has been called a "maximalist" approach to the Six, because this would serve our interests best. If we took the opportunity to make it clear that we were good Europeans, we would cut the ground from under the French who are being seen to be not good Europeans, but who have used the argument that we are not good Europeans against our joining the Common Market. Therefore, the present situation in Europe requires something more than sympathetic noises. It requires a firm statement of our intentions, and it is at this moment that the Five would be very receptive to it. If we do not take this step now we may find in the future that we are forced to be content with some association in Europe which may have many of the drawbacks and limiting factors, with none of the compensating advantages.
I turn now to deal briefly with the situation in Vietnam. I think that I was one of the first to raise doubts in this House about American policy in Vietnam. When I did so it was noticeable that there was very little concern about American policy here. At that time it seemed to me that what the Americans ought to do was to make it clear that they were willing to negotiate without strings. This they had now done. I am not one of those who think that the
1172
Americans are never right, and now I am much more satisfied about their policy in South-East Asia because they have made these announcements and have made genuine efforts to negotiate on any terms. They have not gone the whole way that I should like to see them go, but they have gone some way by calling off the bombing and trying to get a form of cease fire as a preliminary to the negotiations. I believe that it will be worth while to call off the bombing if North Vietnam would call off her aggression, and so try to improve the atmosphere for negotiations to take place.
I believe that the House would mislead itself if it did not face up to the realities of dictatorships, and of Communist dictatorships in particular. I do not believe that while they are winning—and they are—the North Vietnamese are likely to agree to free elections and stopping the war and all the other agreeable things that we would like to see. In my lifetime I have learned to be profoundly suspicious of dictatorships of all sorts, and also to be profoundly suspicious of the Communists. I do not say that after a time, as has happened in Russia and Yugoslavia, they do not settle down, but in the early stages of a Communist dictatorship there is, to put it mildly, a strong tendency towards aggression. I believe that the Foreign Secretary has shown clearly that the aggression came from North Vietnam. There were only 700 Americans in South Vietnam when the aggression started in this acute form, and therefore I am not wholly optimistic about the chances of negotiations in the short run.
The Prime Minister said that he regarded the key to the situation as being in Hanoi. He also said that the mission of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions was possibly the first time on which a real statement of opinion on the proposals of the West had gone through to the North Vietnamese Government. I find it difficult to accept this. I find it difficult to accept that Hanoi is so cut off from the world that they were totally unaware of the proposals made by the British Government or those made by the American Government. These have been widely publicised by various means, which may well have reached the North Vietnamese Ministers.

1173
As for the efforts made to reach the North Vietnamese Government, first through the Commonwealth Mission, and then through the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), my only comment is that they seem to show a split mind behind our policy. Do we approach the North Vietnamese as an honest broker between the two sides, without previous commitment to either, or do we approach them as a friend of America? It is clear that the North Vietnamese Government regard Britain as a friend of America. The Prime Minister made this clear again this afternoon, and I am all for it. The right hon. Gentleman made no bones about where he stood. He stands shoulder to shoulder with the Americans, and he is right to do so, and it is therefore no good pretending that we are an impartial uncommitted nation. If this latter is the line on which the approach is being made, it would be wiser for the Prime Minister to get out of it and to allow someone else to take charge of that Commonwealth Mission.
Equally, that is what bedevilled the mission of the hon. Member for Leek. He was clearly acceptable because he was believed to be sympathetic to the North Vietnamese point of view, and the fact that he was not concerned with the Foreign Office was an advantage. But then he had a Foreign Office official attached to him, and I must say that if I was a North Vietnamese I would have wondered whether he was a sort of trojan horse from the Foreign Office; perhaps Patrick Gordon Walker in disguise. I do not think that one can blame the North Vietnamese for thinking that there was something doubtful about the status of the mission.
It seems that the posture is a possible one at the right time. But it does not seem possible to go to Vietnam saying, on the one hand, that we are paid-up friends of America and, on the other hand, that we are anxious only to do an honest job between the two parties.
We should divide this problem into the short-term and the long-term. So long as the Vietcong is winning it will not negotiate. It must be stopped from winning. This will be a painful process, and I would lot want to see it done by mass area bombing. Perhaps America should abandon some territory and put in far more ground troops, and then hold her
1174
positions in South Vietnam. But once the Vietcong are seen not to be winning negotiations would seem to be possible. At that time there may be a rôle for the United Nations or the Commonwealth Mission. But until that situation is reached it is difficult to believe that we can do much about matters in the short-term.
In the long-term surely there must be a settlement of the whole area. I am surprised that so far in this debate there has been no mention of India. Malaysia has been mentioned. Our prime interest and involvement is in Malaysia, but what we say about Vietnam and what we do about it may have a direct effect upon what others are prepared to do for us in Malaysia. I see the situation becoming more stable in the long run, but still remaining a danger for many years. Britain must face the possibility of having to put troops into Malaysia for many years to come, and in the whole process of defending Malaysia we may be glad of American assistance at some time.
I turn finally to the move to reconvene the Geneva Conference and put a stop to the spread of nuclear weapons. I regard this as a move of great importance, and it is encouraging that at this time the Russians have taken the initiative. We had been told that the Vietnamese situation might mean the return of the cold war, and that it would cause the Russians to be extremely reluctant to show any deviation which might enable a wedge to be driven between them and the Chinese. But today they are willing to talk about preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will say more about this than has been said so far. I share the surprise expressed by The Guardian that the West is apparently talking of putting off this conference and is saying that it is not ready. Who is responsible? Do we not have a responsibility? How do the Government think that this attitude will affect the proposals for a M.L.F. or A.N.F.? These proposals may have to be recast. If our European allies want some say in the programming of nuclear weapons we may have to consider the matter again to find a different way acceptable both to them and to Russia.
How do the Government think that this will affect India? I am told that the

1175
Indians are frightened by the entry of the Chinese into the nuclear field and by the possibility that the Chinese have got much further than people thought. This would seem to be the real crux of the problem of the spread of nuclear weapons. We must provide some safeguard or guarantee to India without allowing these weapons to proliferate still further. The House will be interested to hear of the Government's thinking on this problem.
I end by returning to the theme that I started on: the strategy of this country must be pursued within the groupings of which she is or should be a member. We cannot go it alone. I do not talk only of the past year but of many years when I say that of late it has seemed that British foreign policy has been played far too much "off the cuff". It has consisted far too much of waiting for something to turn up, and, in many instances, for people to die. We have said that we cannot make a move until a certain statesman moves from the world map. That is not a useful posture. The best thing for Britain today would be a strengthening of our economic position and of those organisations of which we are a member. I should like to see this country limit its commitments as far as possible. We should not undertake vague and ill-defined rôles, say, in the Indian Ocean, which have been referred to in previous debates—although I was glad to note that they were absent from the present debate.
In the long run our hard obligations to Malaysia are more important than our attitude about Vietnam, because, at the end of the day, there is not much that we can do about Vietnam. Malaysia, however, is our responsibility. I should like some shift of emphasis away from the Far East and back to our neighbours in Europe.
6.5 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is almost always worth listening to, but I was very disappointed today to find that so much of his speech was negative. For instance, he upbraided my right hon Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) for what I regarded as the speech of his life. My right hon. Friend was urging that the machinery within the United
1176
Nations should be used more than it has been to deal with present difficulties. This argument should have fitted in very well with the right hon. Gentleman's remark that we should work within our present groupings.
I was disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman—especially as he speaks from the Liberal benches—should feel that our influence in the United Nations was, so to speak, hardly worth trying to exert.
Mr. Grimond: I think that the hon. and learned Member is under some misapprehension about my attitude. I believe that the United Nations has a rôle but that it is unfair to ask it to step in between Russia and America. I said that the Foreign Secretary—and also past Foreign Secretaries—had attempted to use the United Nations. I do not understand what the hon. and learned Member is complaining about. I merely think that we should not overburden it.
Mr. Mallalieu: I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South was pointing out many ways in which the United Nations could legitimately and obviously be used, and the right hon. Member seemed to be pouring cold water on my right hon. Friend's suggestions.
Some of the worst pains in the neck which Governments have are those of their supporters who expected too much of them, or whom they think expected too much of them. By that standard, with regard to the present position of the United Nations and the size of our efforts to extricate it from that position, I must count myself as pain in the neck No. 1 to this Government, because I could hardly be more disillusioned as to the way things have gone and the way in which the Government have measured up to the situation in which United Nations finds itself.
There is only one qualification—and I make it without stint—namely, that it is possible that the present Government have been in power for too short a time to be able to make their full presence felt. I believe that they have an influence. I do not want to pretend that I know more about what goes on in foreign countries than many other hon. Members do, but it is my duty to do a great deal of foreign travel and come in

1177
to make representations to Governments in the course of my duty as Secretary-General of The World Association of World Federalists at The Hague. My experience is that in spite of what many people think, this country still has an immense influence which it can exert for peace if only it will do it.
What is it that becoming a Minister does for a man? We all know what the real and sincere views of our Ministers are—at least, I am absolutely convinced that I do. I think that what happens is that when a Minister first goes to a Ministry he finds a pile of papers on his desk, with a group of respectful officials standing around, saying "We must have a decision upon this question in a very short time." They make the best show they can. They try to read through the papers and, by the end of the day, they have to take them home to finish them, until 4 o'clock in the morning. When they come back in the morning, there is another pile of papers and other officials making similar suggestions. Ex-Ministers on the opposite side of the House have been suffering, judging by the results of the policy which they adopted with the United Nations and with other matters in the last few years, in similar ways. The result is that Ministers are incapable in the end of following a consistent initiative, if ever they are capable of making one in the first place.
I have not the slightest doubt that they hold their views with sincerity, but these views are placed in a limbo, partly because of the burden of work and partly because of some inevitable circumstances, like having far too many decisions to make. The woods are invisible: trees, miles of them, remain. The saddest case of all these has occurred in the Foreign Office. Six appointments were made in the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister is greatly to be congratulated on having made two of them in a new and imaginative form—one of disarmament and one for United Nations. A great deal could have been achieved even in this time in disarmament and the United Nations, the two most important questions which any Government has to face.
However, we have had to face a progressive deterioration in the situation, both with regard to the United Nations and to disarmament, and, of course, the two are inextricably entwined. We cannot
1178
have the one—disarmament—unless the other functions as it was intended to function in the first place. So we get crisis after crisis. When a crisis happens there is a scurry of Ministers away from the small amount of long-term thinking which the burdens of their work allow them to undertake. And after the particular crisis is solved, back they come to their papers.
Thank heaven they have tried to solve the particular crisis. I would not attempt to say that Vietnam is not a most tragic and dangerous situation; but I suggest that this situation is only a symptom and by no means the real disease from which the world is suffering. There will be a succession of such symptoms. We went through the Congo and Cyprus and now there is Vietnam. There will be others, of course, because there is no general and complete disarmament and there is no world law or machinery to enforce it which would enable general and complete disarmament to come about.
The Labour Party election manifesto said:
"… our most important effort will be concerned to revive the morale and increase the powers of the United Nations."
I am not entirely blaming this Government, but, all the time, the United Nations has gone downhill and, with great respect to the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, neither Her Majesty's Government nor any other Government have been prepared to do what is necessary to stop this. The United Nations; employs 4,500 people in New York and Geneva—less than the Sanitary Department of New York. It spends £40 million a year—£3 million less than the towns of Britain spend on sewage disposal. Is this the stuff by which successive generations are to be rid of the scourge of war?
I do not want to hammer this subject incessantly, but the Parliamentary Group for World Government, which is one of the largest all-party groups in the House—if not the largest—has taken four initiatives since this Government came to office. One was by one of the Conservative Members, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who, on 7th December, introduced a Motion asking for a permanent United Nations force, a Motion which was unopposed

1179
by the House. We have submitted suggestions to the Prime Minister as to how the United Nations might be revived, we have made an appeal to the Government àpropos the Commonwealth Conference and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, asking them to take an initiative, which we set out, hoping that it might bring back the United Nations machinery to something of its former usefulness.
We have put down Motion No. 180, which is on the Order Paper signed by 70 hon. Members, two of whom are right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposite side of the House, asking for a world security authority capable of enforcing world law. The activities of this group in this Parliament have had practically no result, save two rather depressing letters from the Prime Minister, in one of which he actually retreats from the Motion passed by this House on 7th December. I want the Government to know that there is very real disappointment in this group and I am disturbed that I should be able to say with truth that this is the case.
We know that there have been some good gestures towards the United Nations idea and I say, profoundly, "Thank God". The two new offices were allocated in the Foreign Office, so very near to the heart of the problem. There is the logistic support offered to six battalions of troops volunteered by other Governments to be on call by the United Nations; and there is the sum of 10 million dollars to help to wipe out the past debts of the United Nations. But there is no promise, though asked for, from the Prime Minister that a proportion, however small, of that sum which may be saved when general and complete disarmament comes about will be devoted to the development of the underdeveloped parts of the world—an easy enough thing to promise, one would have thought. How important that would be to encouraging support for peace-keeping measures now, on the part of those under-developed nations.
We have been told that it is not practical at present to propose a permanent United Nations force. We are told that the Government know that it is unacceptable to other Powers besides ourselves. I should have thought that it was at least acceptable to ourselves.
1180
Which other nations are these to which it is unacceptable? When was it proposed to them? Another suggestion which we made was that it should be proposed that a United Nations commission should be set up to explore the principles and the details of a permanent force and to find out what was the highest common factor which could be agreed upon. We were told that this was a good idea and that it could be discussed in the 33-nation committee now trying to find a way out of the United Nation's difficulties. Has it been? With what result? Was any proposal made about it by our representative there?
I return to the statement that the proposal of a permanent United Nations force would be unacceptable to other major Powers at present. Maybe it would; their Governments are composed of ministers like ours who are harassed and have far too much to do and not nearly enough time to do the broad forward thinking necessary for these things, bbut what about the peoples? Is it unacceptable to them? What do our Government think of that splendid initiative which was taken by Pope John? What do they think of the response which that initiative had in the hearts of nearly all people of all religions, colours and continents?
I think it is bordering just a little on the impertinent to say that something for which he called and which received that response from the peoples of the world—not only for an expression of a desire for peace, but for institutions to maintain and enforce world law—when a Government say that such a proposal is not acceptable to them. The Parliamentary group urged the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and in particular our own Government, to implement their own declaration of 1961, which asked for the setting up of a world security authority capable of enforcing world law.
I happened to know that earlier this year that the present Pope—I am not a Roman Catholic and I can speak with complete objectivity about these things—was willing to go to the United Nations, to take that unprecedented step to try to lift it out of the slough in which it was, and was prepared to give his accolade and his full support to any

1181
government which would put forward a scheme capable of raising the United Nations out of that position.
Nobody will deny that had the Commonwealth made the proposal which we suggested and had that been backed by His Holiness the Pope, it would have been a very formidable combination of influence for good in the world. Did Her Majesty's Government make any proposal for joint Commonwealth action which might have forged that combination? If so, they have been very quiet about it. The world now knows that the Pope does intend to go to New York, but what we do not know is whether our Government—or, far better, the Commonwealth—will by that time have earned his accolade and will have forged that combination which I believe could still sweep the world.
The Commonwealth is in a unique position; I need not go into its multiracial composition and the rest. The proposal we were urging on the Government and the Commonwealth was one which was agreed to by the Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference in Copenhagen last year. It was agreed to by the Iron Curtain countries and it contains the principles upon which peacekeeping machinery can in future be regulated, principles which we shall need if we are to have general and complete disarmament without which most of us believe stable peace cannot be achieved. I will read it; it is very short:
"The 53rd Inter-Parliamentary Conference considering

1. that it will eventually be necessary to organise a world force as part of an agreement for the general and complete disarmament of sovereign States;

2. that in the meantime the United Nations must have at its disposal a unit composed of legal, military and technical specialists capable of being sent, in accordance with the Charter and with the agreements of the Governments concerned, to troubled areas when these present a danger to peace;

Calls upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to take the necessary steps, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter,

1. for the appointment of key persons to make plans for its operation and form the cadres to which, from time to time, may be added the military and other forces made available to it by member States;

1182

2. to establish a Statute immediately under which such a unit should act."

Nobody is pretending that that, if it came into being, would stop clashes between the great powers. What is being said is that this is a prototype of machinery which eventually will do that, but in the meantime will have the very important task of damping down much smaller dangers and perhaps preventing their escalation. It is no use Her Majesty's Government saying, "Ah, but the Russians will not agree with this; the Inter-Parliamentary Union may have agreed." The Inter-Parliamentary Union consists of Members of Parliament who are uncrushed by these burdens of paperwork and all the day to day decisions and duties which are weighing on Ministers and which kill their initiative even when they are keen and devotedly sincere about a particular cause.
I pause to thank my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for his compliment to our branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union for the part it played in the recent visit of Parliamentarians of U.A.R. That was a very much welcomed compliment. I can assure my right hon. Friend on behalf of our branch that we shall do all we can in future to help in the way of smoothing troubled waters and oiling machines which perhaps do not go so well as they should. The Inter-Parliamentary Union may consist only of Members of Parliament, but when Mr. Gromyko was here only the other day I made a special point of asking him, "What about this Resolution?" I asked, "Is not this Soviet policy?" He said, "Of course it is. Our delegates would not have proposed it had it not been."
Therefore I say have faith, do not just accept Foreign Office briefs, redolent as they are of urbanity, scepticism and suspicion. Go in and make proposals. I say to this Government that if by the September Session of the United Nations—there will be a Session, thank heavens, a small thing to boast about, but one can say that—if they have not made a real initiative on the lines I have suggested following that Inter-Parliamentary Union Resolution, or something very like it, I submit to them with all sincerity that their responsibility will be a heavy one, to their own supporters, to this country and to humanity.
6.30 p.m.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I find myself in a somewhat unusual position, for I feel sorely tempted to defend the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues against the accusation made by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who accused the Government of giving only lukewarm support to the United Nations. However, I am sure that they do not need me to defend them and I will leave it to them to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's charges later in the debate.
We all recognise the sincerity of the hon. and learned Gentleman, although his accusation seemed unfair. Certainly I have not read the events in the way he described them. We appreciate his passionate yearning for a world Government, although many of the theories which he advanced seemed to presuppose a degree of agreement among the 114 Members of the United Nations which I do not believe exists. I wish it did. If there were such a degree of agreement half the problems which are now so difficult to solve would not have arisen, but I will not argue further in that vein at this stage.
We are right, this being the first day of a two-day debate on foreign affairs, to be devoting a good deal of time to the problems of South-East Asia. That is, in my view, by far the most serious part of the world for us to be discussing. It is right to remind ourselves from time to time that it is not only Vietnam which is a danger spot. Malaysia is equally important. In that area we are fighting a battle for the freedom of Malaysia; to defend it against aggression from Indonesia with the same objectives as the Americans have in intervening to defend South Vietnam against North Vietnam. Indeed, the two territories hang together.
The Foreign Secretary put this clearly in his last speech in a foreign affairs debate in the House in April. I suggest that Malaysia is almost a text book example of a defence agreement which must at all costs be honoured. Here is a newly independent country within the Commonwealth with no aggressive intentions of any kind. It is a country which has no territorial ambitions and which has done nothing wrong. Its federation with Borneo, Sarawak and Singapore, has been confirmed by a United Nations Com-
1184
mission, and it has been subjected to absolutely unwanton and unprovocated aggression from Indonesia. It is right, therefore, that the present Government should have undertaken precisely the same defence commitments in the area as the former Government undertook 18 months ago.
The right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) rather over-simplified the problem of Malaysia. He quoted a correspondent in The Times, mentioned a few of his own opinions and more or less said, "One does not want troops. One wants roads, schools and hospitals". Who will walk up a road to work in a hospital or teach in a school if there is only an even money chance of getting there, let alone getting back again, without being ambushed or shot? Suppose we had taken that view about Malaya when it was still administered directly by the British Government? Suppose we had not used troops to get on top of the very serious Communist threat from inside and a terrorist movement of great proportions 10 or 15 years ago? If we had not got on top of that movement would Malaya and the surrounding territories have become a free and independent Malaysia? How does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it achieved independence? Was it not because we guaranteed and secured its safety?
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I was a member of the Government that began the resistance against the Communists in Malaya. When I quoted the defence correspondent of The Times in connection with roads and hospitals I suggested that a great many other measures were needed and which, I thought, it might be possible to take. I did not for a moment suggest that there should be no defence against raids from Indonesia.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Unless I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman—and his remarks are within the recollection of the House—he suggested that the troops were not doing much good and that the war could not be won that way; that a new form of United Nations commission or committee would do something which our defence commitments to Malaysia could not do. I understood him to say that the United Nations would, by some means, achieve a settlement between Indonesia and Malaysia which

1185
none of the other powers concerned could do. I respect that view but I am bound to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with it.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: I quoted the defence correspondent of The Times, who had pointed out that this war would not be won by standing armies but by more roads, hospitals and so on. I did not for a moment suggest that the defence should De stopped. I suggested that it was urgently necessary that the confrontation should be ended with the least possible delay. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not dispute that.
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I must leave it to the House to decide whether the right hon. Gentleman was agreeing or disagreeing with the defence correspondent of The Times and whether he was or was not suggesting that some form of United Nations commission or committee should intervene in Malaysia and do something which U Thant and others have hitherto failed to do.
Mr. Philip Noel-Baker rose—
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I cannot keep giving way. A great many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.
As I have said, South Vietnam is subject to precisely the same aggression, but in a slightly different way, and the United States was asked to help. The United States is doing in South Vietnam precisely the same, in terms of defence against the Communist threat, as we are performing in Malaysia. It should be pointed out that if for any reason South Vietnam were to collapse, so to speak, and be overrun there would be a chain reaction right across the whole of South-East Asia, involving Borneo, Sarawak, Malaysia and many other areas with almost incalculable consequences which no one knows better or has put more clearly than the Foreign Secretary himself.
I believe there is no one in the House or outside it who does not want to try to get a settlement in Vietnam and Malaysia. There must be very few people, if any, who have not had at the back of their minds the lurking fear that the war in Vietnam might escalate. For that reason we would all endorse the Prime Minister's view that it is right to make attempts to get a settlement, no matter
1186
how unorthodox or unusual the means. However, I would make one qualification. It is that the methods so used should not prejudice the objective.
A number of attempts to achieve a settlement have been made. The Foreign Secretary has done his best to reconvene the Geneva Conference, of which he is co-Chairman. Nobody could conceivably blame him for his not having been able so far to persuade Mr. Gromyko to come along. Then we had the Gordon Walker Mission. That was attempt No. 2. I would be surprised—although I do not, of course, know—if Mr. Gordon Walker brought back from his trip to the Far East very much more information than was already known, for the simple reason that he could not go to either Peking or Hanoi.
Then we have attempt No. 3—the Commonwealth Mission. This seemed to me to be a bit of a shotgun marriage—conceived on the croquet lawns, so we are told in the Press. Of that Mission, I only say that it has not got off the ground at all. China and the Soviet Union have refused to receive it, and the Vietnamese have also returned a negative reply through their News Agency, which is the only contact we have.
Was it wise to embark on a mission or an idea of this kind without first discovering whether those likely to participate in it were all agreed as to its objective? In this case, they were not. We know that President Nyerere and the Prime Minister of Ceylon openly said, "No.". To embark on such a mission without the agreement of all the Prime Ministers about the settlement sought, and to embark on it without knowing whether it will be received at the other end, seems to be a little hasty. I should have thought that the golden rule about this kind of manoeuvre would be, before flying the kite, to make quite certain of at least 50 per cent. success. That cannot be said of the Commonwealth mission.
Fourth, we have the trip of the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. If the Foreign Secretary will forgive my saying so, I find this one of the strangest of all the manoeuvres, and I would be surprised if it did not cause the right hon. Gentleman himself a great many headaches. In circumstances like

1187
these, there is a good deal to be said for sending a backbencher who has a special and long-standing contact with a particular country, and whose views are well known, to that country, and to ask him, so to speak, to take the temperature. He can talk freely, what he says does not commit the Government and, when he returns and reports, the Government can assess the value of his views as they wish. There is much to be said for that kind of manoeuvre.
I do not think that there is much to be said for taking a junior Minister from a Department that has not been dealing with Hanoi—there is not much demand for National Insurance in Hanoi—and sending him out, as a member of the Government. The Prime Minister was most insistent that that was what the hon. Gentleman was doing. The Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box that the Parliamentary Secretary went as a member of the Government. To send out a junior Minister of another Department, without knowing whether he would be received by any Minister in Hanoi, or even knowing whether he would get a visa, seems to be an almost perfect example of having the worst of both worlds.
The Foreign Secretary tried to send Mr. Murray with the Parliamentary Secretary. Those of us who know Mr. Murray know very well what an exceedingly able, competent and experienced official he is in respect of that part of the world; the right hon. Gentleman could not have sent anyone better. But what a farce! The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and this very able official from the Foreign Office go off in an aeroplane, get three-quarters of the way there—and what happens? When they get to Ventiame, the Parliamentary Secretary, as a member of the Government—the phrase used by the Prime Minister—merely gets a tourist's visa. What happens to Mr. Murray? Through no fault of his own, he does not even get a tourist's visa. He is turned back, and cannot go on. So the Parliamentary Secretary, representing the Government, without an official with him, goes off on a tourist's visa to make what contacts he can. Was it really thought that this was likely to pay off?
1188
I know that the Prime Minister has said that the Consul-General, Mr. Ponsonby, was of great assistance—I am sure that he was. But the Consul-General there is in a very difficult position. It must be a most awkward position, because there are no diplomatic relations, which means that he has no official contact with the Government of Hanoi. So little contact has he, through no fault of his own, that when the suggestion was made that the Commonwealth Mission wished to go to Hanoi, there was no answer to the offer because the North Vietnamese Government refused to receive the proposal from the Consul-General. I find it very difficult to believe that Mr. Ponsonby, for all his ability and experience, could have been of much help at that moment to the unfortunate Parliamentary Secretary; he had not been in touch, because there were no diplomatic relations with the Government of Hanoi.
Does the Foreign Secretary think it right that a junior Minister of any Department, as a member of the British Government, should be put in this position, this curious kind of hole-in-the-corner, rather furtive mission, fulfilling the rôle of an amalgam between James Bond and Will Hay? I do not think that it is right, and I do not believe that it is the way to negotiate, nor is it the way to get across to anybody in Hanoi or anywhere else that the Government mean to stand firm.
I must also ask, with due respect to the hon. Gentleman: was he really the best choice?
Mrs. Harriet Slater: Why not?
Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Because the Parliamentary Secretary's views are very well known. He wrote an admirable pamphlet entitled "Why S.E.A.T.O.?" which condemned in no uncertain terms the whole idea of S.E.A.T.O. and the whole American policy in South-East Asia. Whether the author of that pamphlet was the right person to go as a member of a Government whose policy is directly opposite to those expressed in this pamphlet, is another matter. Is this really the way to negotiate? I do not think that it is.
There is always one certain way by which we can negotiate, as some people

1189
call it, "successfully" with the Communists. It is quite simple. All one has to do is to make a unilateral concession in return for the promise of a call-off or cessation of an aggression that never should have started. That is advocated in certain quarters. It is the diplomatic version of the old gold-watch trick. I steal the right hon. Gentleman's watch. He says, "I want it back." I reply, "Yes, you can have it back, but if I give it back it is a concession on my part. I want a comparable concession on your part, so give me your notecase."
That is one way of dealing with the Communists, but, if I may say so, it is not the way to get a lasting settlement, or to keep peace, or to win freedom for millions of people in South-East Asia, and nobody knows that better, or has been more firmly against it, than the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues. That is why we on this side support them in their determination to do what they can to get negotiations going, knowing quite well that there are certain essential conditions that must be fulfilled, and certain bargaining points that can be ceded but other essential points that cannot.
No matter how much difficulty the Foreign Secretary may have from certain quarters, the country as a whole—and, I am certain, three-quarters of the Members of this House—fully support him, in the knowledge that he will stand firm for South Vietnam, because other parts of the world are involved as well. South Vietnam and Malaya hang together, and there is the defence against Communist aggression in a very large area of the world.
6.50 p.m.
Mr. Dick Taverne: I start by complaining that there should be a debate on foreign affairs generally. This is by now a customary complaint which I raised on the last occasion on which there was a foreign affairs debate. To debate foreign affairs in general is like debating domestic affairs in general: there are far too many aspects of foreign affairs for us to be able to have a single debate. Why not have one day on Vietnam, one day on the Common Market, and another day on the United Nations? These are issues on which debates are needed, but a grand tour of the world is not something which
1190
enables us to have a proper debate of any kind. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will represent to the Leader of the House that in future we should have proper and more frequent debates on foreign affairs, each one dealing with specific issues.
It is because I wish to deal with a subject which is the predominant subject on this debate that I cannot follow up some of the very interesting remarks already made. I should very much like to take up remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party about the future of Britain's membership of Europe; but it is Vietnam that clearly takes the centre of the stage today, and it is about Vietnam that I wish to talk. I wish to examine the question of Vietnam in the wider context of East-West relations.
At the heart of many if not most of the foreign policy problems which face us, clearly there lies the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States. The question of disarmament, the question of the United Nations and the future of the developing countries are all directly affected by the relationship between the Soviet Union and the United States and the possible relaxation of tensions between the two.
In recent years the relations between the two biggest powers in the world were improving. There had been a relaxation of the rigidity of the foreign policy of the United States under Foster Dulles and welcome signs of a preparedness to move towards relaxation on the part of the Soviet Union. With the stalemate in Europe, which was in my view contributed to by the firmness of the Western Alliance, with the development of ever increasingly destructive weapon systems, a common interest seemed to emerge, a realisation that neither could win a nuclear war and that there was a common interest in stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The test ban treaty was a result of this, but it was only one field in which the Soviet Union and the United States appeared to be moving more closely together.
It has been said that one of the worst affects of the war in Vietnam is the worsening of relations between the Soviet Union and the United States or, at any

1191
rate, an end to improving relations between the two. I want to see how far this is true and, if so, what the implications are.
Before I turn to the actual position in Vietnam and the various parties involved, I want to say something about the historical background. I think it is possible to be too much dominated by past rights and wrongs. As events evolve, from time to time one may have to change one's original view because events have overtaken one. There are many fields in which that is true. In quite a different field, I feel that the Arabs were grievously wronged over Palestine, but that does not justify the attitude of those Arabs who now wish to eliminate the State of Israel. Similarly, in the case of Vietnam, by looking at the history of the rights and wrongs since the Geneva Agreement, it is possible to be too much dominated by it. Of course there were breaches of the agreement by the Americans and by the North, but one has to look, at a certain stage, at where one is now, and the central question one has to answer is, what do we do now?
I turn therefore to the position of the various Powers involved and, first, that of the United States. The United States is massively committed to the defence of South Vietnam. It is determined to avoid defeat and not to abandon its ally the South Vietnamese Government and, in particular, not to suffer humiliation in the face of China and to stop the expansion of Chinese influence in the area. I do not accept that United States policy in the past has been above blame or has always been wise.
In the first place, in my view there was a fundamental error in United States policy in failing to recognise the Government of China. In the second place, in seeking to draw a line in the face of China and to limit Chinese influence, I am not sure that they chose the right place in which to become deeply committed.
I am less and less impressed by the domino theory. It seems to me that with the entirely different history of Vietnam from the history of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Burma and the entirely different religious background and influence in those parts of the world, it by no means follows that if there should
1192
be an establishment of Communism in the whole of Vietnam, Communism would spread automatically to those other areas. I think that the religious background of those other countries makes them a much less fertile field for the spread of Communism.
Again, I do not think that Vietnamese interference in the affairs of Laos is something which necessarily leads to the conclusion that the domino theory will apply, because that interference might have taken place even with a different kind of Government in Vietnam.
Thirdly, again I doubt if the tactics of the United States in their struggle in Vietnam have always been wise. If they were determined to prevent victory of the Vietcong, it could clearly only be done on the ground and if, as they have now shown themselves to be, they are prepared to send troops to attempt to prevent the Vietcong victory on the ground, one must raise some question about the wisdom of the bombing of the North. It has not proved decisive. It may have been of some military help; I am not in a position to judge. It is undoubtedly more dangerous than a land commitment in the South. There is a greater chance of conflict spreading, and fighting a ground war in the South is more easily compatible with the achievement of a limited settlement.
But, when all is said and done and when one can point to the mistakes which the United States may have made in the past, nevertheless two points stand out. The first is that the United States are prepared to negotiate. It is also clear that they are prepared to negotiate for limited objectives. They accept the objective which was announced the other day by the Foreign Secretary. They accept the position that at some stage they may have to withdraw. They accept the aim of a neutralised South Vietnam
The second point which stands out—and this is one of the basic issues which face us as members of the alliance with the United States—is that if the United States withdraw in circumstances of defeat, then, as the Prime Minister has mentioned, no other ally of the United States in Asia or possibly elsewhere can rely with any confidence on American promises of support, and the whole Western Alliance will have received a severe blow.

1193
I turn next to the position of China. Whatever might have been if China had been recognised by the United States—and again that is an idle subject for speculation; it may well be they would now be less intransigent—the clear fact is that the Chinese are now in an utterly uncompromising mood. I am not clear about their territorial ambitions. I do not think it is a factor which can be ruled out after the history of Tibet, but again I find it very hard to judge how far they seek direct territorial expansion for themselves. What is clear is that in South Vietnam and elsewhere in South-East Asia, they seek the humiliation of the United States. The stepping up of the propaganda in Thailand and the support for the Thai Government in exile that they recognise is yet another sign of it. It is also clear that the whole emphasis of the Chinese Government at the moment is against a policy of relaxation.
This policy of relaxation between East and West is denounced as revisionism, as the greatest of all crimes. The World Peace Conference in Helsinki again underlines the utterly inflexible and uncompromising mood of the Chinese at the moment.
It is, unfortunately, also clear that the mood in Hanoi is very similar to the mood in Peking. There appears to have been a long struggle in Hanoi between the Russians and the Chinese. The fact that for a considerable time the Hanoi regime did not answer the request for a Commonwealth initiative may be traced back to this struggle. But, unfortunately, it is clear that the Chinese elements appear to have won. Only today there is a report from Hanoi showing that there, too, revisionism is denounced.
Hanoi has an additional reason for rejecting the idea of negotiations. It is not just that it appears to be winning. I think that in understanding its position one must bear in mind that in 1954 it felt cheated of victory. In 1954 it had some reason for expecting that it would win the elections in the South. But there were no elections. This is an additional reason why Hanoi should be extremely suspicious about negotiations and about a further settlement.
I turn, lastly, to the Russian attitude. The Russian position seems to be a very
1194
difficult one indeed. Clearly, the Russians cannot be seen to abandon another Communist Power. Clearly, they cannot be seen to be less enthusiastic in their support for a Communist ally than other Communist powers. In this sense it is clear that the conflict in Vietnam has worsened the relations between East and West. At the same time there is no evidence that the desire of the Soviet Union to achieve relaxation has become any the less. In fact, there is some evidence to the contrary. Firstly, its help to the North Vietnamese régime has been defensive. Secondly, the Russian attitude to the Commonwealth initiative was different from the attitude of Hanoi and Peking. The Russians did not say, "This is a ridiculous initiative." They did not denounce it as a swindle and a trick in the way the Chinese did. They referred the initiative to Hanoi.
Thirdly, as the Prime Minister said today, the renewed interest of the Russians in the Geneva talks on disarmament and their apparent renewed interest in some non-proliferation agreement can only bring encouragement to those who wish to see relaxation between East and West. There is every reason to suppose that the Soviet Union wishes to see a negotiated settlement as opposed to an American humiliation and defeat. After all, the core of the Soviet argument with China is relaxation and coexistence on the one hand versus wars of liberation on the other hand. Negotiations followed by some neutralisation settlement and withdrawal of United States forces would prove the Russian case. A defeat and humiliation of the United States and a withdrawal in circumstances of defeat would enhance the Chinese case. If the latter were to take place, the Soviet position would be weakened and the prospects of agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States would also be weakened.
If this analysis is right, it is clear where our support should now be. Whatever may be the past rights and wrongs of both sides, we face a very stark and ugly choice in Vietnam. While no negotiations are acceptable to Peking or Hanoi, we face a very ugly choice from which we cannot escape. It is one choice only, short of negotiations. We must either continue the war or else face defeat and humiliation. I say "we", but it is, of

1195
course, the United States which has to face this choice. Our power, as a previous speaker observed, is strictly limited, and the influence that we have is limited. But the Western Alliance or the United States, which is our ally, must face either continuation of the struggle or defeat.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: My hon. and learned Friend used the word "humiliation". Does he recollect that we were humiliated when we lost the American colonies and that humiliation was a very good thing for us?
Mr. Taverne: I think that there is in this area of the world a difference between neutralisation arrived at possibly with a Communist victory in the elections, arrived at after genuine free elections and after a settlement on the subject, and a Communist military victory, which would prove the Chinese argument. If this is the choice that we face, the second result, of an American defeat and of the Americans leaving in a situation of humiliation, would be not only that the position of the United States would be weakened, not only that it would be a blow to the Western Alliance, the alliance which is the basis of our foreign policy, but it would also be a weakening of the Soviet position and of the Soviet argument, and it would mean that the prospects of agreement between the Soviet Union and the United States, which must be the basis of any real peace in the world, would have much further receded.
7.6 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Campbell: The hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) started by pointing out that we had to switch from subject to subject, and he made a plea, which I support, for more time for foreign affairs debates so that it might be possible to split up days or half days between subjects.
The hon. and learned Member spoke about Vietnam, and I intend to speak on another subject, but we both took part in a university "teach-in" a short time ago on Vietnam, and I found myself then, as I do now, in agreement with a large part of what the hon. Gentleman has said, in particular about the importance of the conflict between Soviet Union and China in regard to their interests in South-East Asia.
1196
The subject about which I wish to speak—the Prime Minister mentioned that it would be dealt with by the Foreign Secretary tomorrow—is the situation at the United Nations. This foreign affairs debate is the last opportunity for the House to consider what can be done at the United Nations about the present deadlock in the General Assembly before the normal time for the 20th session of the General Assembly to open, which would be the third week in September. The General Assembly is at present virtually suspended in order to avoid voting and, therefore, testing Article 19. The other organs of the United Nations can, of course, carry on and work can be carried on in the field. The Security Council is not at present directly affected. However, so much of the activity of the United Nations requires the sanction or the support of the General Assembly that paralysis could set in if a settlement is not reached. Even the Security Council could find itself in difficulties because its functioning depends up the election of its members by the General Assembly.
The cause of this is an argument on two points, first, the costs of peace-keeping operations, and, secondly—to my mind more important—the authorisation of peace-keeping operations. The second raises a basic argument about the meaning of the Charter. Another reason why the present situation is important and why it must be resolved is that these peace-keeping operations are themselves a useful and necessary part nowadays of the United Nations security and political functions. For example, in Gaza and Cyprus there are peace-keeping forces at present. It is an odd fact that when these forces are successful they tend to fade out of the news. If they were not successful in their job the places where they are would soon become danger spots again. In my view there would be a signal improvement in the machinery of the United Nations if agreement were reached on future procedure for these peacekeeping operations.
The United Nations Charter did not specifically provide for such operations. The situations which have arisen in the Congo and Cyprus were not uppermost in the minds of those who were framing the Charter in 1945. They were more concerned with what can be called the old fashioned kind of aggression, of the Hitler

1197
and Mussolini type, with which people at that time were only too familiar.
Here I hope that I can make, modestly, a contribution to this debate arising from my own experience in a previous incarnation as a diplomatist. I worked as an official at the United Nations in its early days, including three years in our permanent delegation when the United Nations was at Lake Success. In those days, we were working with the Charter when it was new and seeing it being applied for the first time to different situations.
Some countries involved in the argument now, notably the Soviet Union and France, consider that the Security Council should control peace-keeping. They have refused to pay the cost in some cases where there have been operations which they do not consider were properly authorised. In my opinion, the Security Council has the primary responsibility for keeping peace, but it also contains a veto, and the use of the veto can stop it from doing anything.
However, it is important to recognise that the veto was necessary and, indeed, was a part of the concept of the United Nations at the beginning. The reason for it, as I have always seen it, was that, if a majority of the United Nations voted for a military action against a great Power or against the vital interests of a great Power, it could bring about the head on collision which it was one of the primary purposes of the United Nations to avoid and there would then be a situation in which it was about to provoke, or be in danger of provoking, the world war we were trying to avoid. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, the concept of the United Nations recognised and reflected the facts, and it is a fundamental point that the great Powers could not be involved in a clash of this kind without the danger of world war.
In 1950 there occurred the aggression in Korea, and this is what could be described as an open kind of an aggression. There were United Nations observers on the border. They telegraphed that the North had attacked the South. I remember the occasion because I was a member of our permanent delegation and I rushed to the emergency meet-
1198
ing of the Security Council on the Sunday afternoon, the aggressors having, typically, chosen a Saturday afternoon, 25th June, 1950, along the pre-Second World War lines.
Because of the presence of United Nations observers—althought the Soviet bloc continually took the opposite line that the South attacked the North—most of the world agreed that the North had attacked the South. Because of the coincidence of the absence of the Soviet Union from these meetings at the beginning of the Korean episode, the veto was not used. The Russians were sulking over the question of Chinese representation. A United Nations command could therefore be set up and United Nations operations started.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that China should be admitted to the United Nations or not?
Mr. Campbell: I thought that point would come up. I shall not go into it now because it would be the subject of another speech. The view of this side of the House and of the Government is that the Peking Government should be in China's chair at the United Nations. But that is not a question of membership. China was a founder member of the United Nations and has a seat on the Security Council with a veto. This is a matter of representation. It always comes up as a question of credentials, which makes it about five times more difficult than simply admitting China as a member, as the hon. Lady said.
We all know that if the Peking Government were offered the chance of coming into the United Nations as an additional member they would almost certainly refuse. What the Peking Government want is to replace the present occupants of China's seat at the United Nations and that is a difficult problem. We in Britain have made it clear since 1950 what our view is.
Following the aggression in Korea, the General Assembly session at the end of 1950 passed the "United for Peace" resolution. This had two important points. First, it spelt out how the General Assembly might make recommendations under the Charter if the Security Council were unable to take any action owing to the veto. It should be noted that the

1199
word "recommendations" was used. Whereas the Security Council, throughout the Charter, can take decisions which are binding, the General Assembly can only make recommendations to members. The second point was that the Assembly set up the Collective Measures Committee which could co-ordinate action against an aggressor.
But since Korea situations have not occurred of this particular kind which could be called "open aggression", and the call upon the United Nations has been for forces to garrison an area in order to carry out what have come to be known as peace-keeping operations. It is very relevant to remember that one of the troubles has been that the part of the Charter which would have provided the Security Council with a military staff and other military arrangements has never been put into effect—Articles 43 to 47—although the Soviet Union agreed to the Charter in that form and to the Articles at the San Francisco Conference twenty years ago.
There must have been a change of mind in the Soviet Union soon afterwards, because it made it clear that it would not be a party to these Articles being put into effect. The result of the "United for Peace" Resolution, the failure of Articles 43 to 47 and the great use of the veto by the Soviet Union has been to bring the General Assembly into security matters more than was intended by the Charter.
This is what the Soviet Union and France, in particular, appear to be wanting to redress. They have both proposed in the Committee of 33, which was set up following the abortive session of the General Assembly last autumn to go into peace-keeping operations, that action under Articles 43 to 47 should not be started. This, I think, is significant, and I would firmly recommend to the Government that they should follow it up. It may not lead very far and may take some time, but this certainly is a change of view after twenty years on the part of the Soviet Union.
I believe also that the Security Council's primary role should be recognised and that the Soviet Union and France have a definite point here. But this should not be to the exclusion of the General Assembly's ability to act and
1200
to make recommendations if there has been a veto. I believe that it is in the interests of Britain and the United States that this situation should be so and that more balance should not be given to the Security Council as the Charter originally intended.
In a situation at the United Nations of "one country, one vote"—a system that will, I am sure, carry on for many years—a two-thirds majority in the General Assembly could represent a very small percentage of population and power and could be completely at variance with the real majority and with the facts of the situation. An interim report was made by the Committee of Thirty-three up to 15th June when it was due to report finally, and the President of the General Assembly and the Secretary-General have put in a Report on general principles which have been agreed.
Time is running out and it is essential that there should be a settlement before the General Assembly is due to meet again in September. I have always thought that there were the bones of a settlement there, based on more being put in the hands of the Security Council in security matters, more flexibility over future payments for peace-keeping operations and the recognition of special occasions where voluntary peace-keeping can be carried out or peacekeeping with the consent of the parties involved. Above all, speed is essential. If the procedures of the future are to work they must be procedures which can be operated quickly so that there is no long delay before forces can reach the ground. I believe that the financial side can be settled at the same time as assurances are given to some of the complaining countries on this point.
As for earmarking forces, the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) advocated a kind of United Nations Legion composed of persons individually recruited from all nationalities. I do not support that suggestion, although I know that it finds favour with hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House. My feeling is that the difficulties of language, training and discipline are very great and that if such a force is to come about this will be a long way ahead. The numbers required are always unpredictable. I believe that there are 10,000 troops in the United Nations peacekeeping forces at present. These could be

1201
added to, but we hope that they will be diminished if problems are settled. The difficulties of having a standing army with nothing to do when there are no peacekeeping jobs could be a cause of complaint.
I think that we are right in taking the view that peace-keeping should be based on the supply of national contingents. There is a convention that the great powers themselves do not provide combatant troops. This is part of the principle which I mentioned earlier in connection with the veto in the Security Council, because if a peace-keeping force was put into action by a General Assembly recommendation which included a large number of combatant troops from a great power, then unless there were special circumstances this could cause a dangerous situation because it might be against the crucial interests of another great power. I suppose that this is the reason why the British Government offer only logistic support. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary can tell us more about this tomorrow.
It must be remembered that Britain has herself carried out some very successful peace-keeping operations with her own forces in parts of East Africa and South-East Asia, but these were all in Commonwealth countries or Colonial Territories, and with the consent of the Commonwealth Governments this kind of operation can be carried out by our forces. They were dependent upon our bases in various parts of the world and the over-flying facilities we were able to obtain. This is an important point which the Government should remember when they themselves, as they have done in the past, commend these operations as successful British operations. But there are situations in which only an international peace-keeping force will be acceptable and on occasions only an international force which has the blessing of the United Nations. It is, therefore, not only important from the point of view of the United Nations and its functioning that this problem should be solved, but also that the United Nations should be able to supply these forces quickly.
On balance, it is to the interest of all groups and of all countries which are members of United Nations that the United Nations should continue to function Properly. It has its weaknesses
1202
and failures. I will not go into those now but anyone who, like myself, has worked there as an official is conscious of them. The United Nations reflects the weaknesses and failures of its membership, but there is an essential need for an organisation based on universal membership as well as the associations and alliances which exist for special purposes.
The United Nations provides a meeting place for East and West and for all the countries of the world of different views and interests, but we should not expect too much of it. Here I agree with the Leader of the Liberal Party. If we expect too much of it we may be disappointed but we must use it to the full extent of its capacity. One of its troubles in its first five years, of which we who worked there were only too conscious, was that many people expected far too much of it.
Now is the time for confidential diplomacy. The Committee of Thirty-three has reported and we do not know what is going on behind the scenes, but we should try to get a settlement before the next session of the General Assembly. I hope that the Government will tell us that there energetic efforts are being made to agree upon procedures for peacekeeping and to cover its cost, because the future of the United Nations depends upon this.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) spoke with intimate knowledge of the affairs of the United Nations. He made one point on which I offer him my support at the outset when he discussed the dispute over financial contributions as a dispute over policy and procedure. That is the only intelligent way in which that problem may be discussed and I think that it was with the support of the whole House, with a few exceptions, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made a statement on this matter not long ago. That statement was republished in all the capitals of the world and had a beneficial influence on the situation in the United Nations. It was precisely because my right hon. Friend highlighted the significance of the political disagreement, reserving the position of his Government and at the same

1203
time repeating that we would exercise patience in this difficult situation, that he had such widespread support.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in opening the debate today, said that he would confine himself to a small number of subjects so that we would not have a debate too far-reaching and thereby shapeless and difficult for the Government to reply to in detail. My right hon. Friend added that as there were three Ministers from the Foreign Office batting either today or tomorrow a good many of the other problems that he had not raised but which other hon. Members might mention subsequently would be attended to in replies.
I should like to follow the Prime Minister's advice and concentrate my remarks on two subjects only, the first being the important problem of nuclear proliferation and European security. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will be able to say a good deal more on this than did the Prime Minister who concentrated Largely on Vietnam and one other subject.
First of all there has erupted into the general discussion recently a statement by the German Foreign Minister, Dr. Schroeder which I regard as unhelpful, and in many ways dangerous. I am particularly alarmed that this statement has come from Dr. Schroeder, who is by no means an extremist in these matters, and who has in the past, given evidence that he would like his own Cabinet to be co-operating in this matter of nuclear non-proliferation with other Governments far more than some other members of the West German Government. I was therefore perturbed to find him giving voice to what can only be considered as a threat as to what the attitude of the West German Government might be unless we adopted certain policies.
He said in an interview with a West German paper—and the point was subsequently repeated by Herr von Haase, the Secretary of State responsible for the office of information in the West German Government, at an official Press conference in Bonn—that there were two conditions attached to the participation of the West German Government in trying to agree on a treaty of non-proliferation of nuclear arms. If I may summarise
1204
these two conditions, they were, firstly, that there must be an agreement concerning the participation of West Germany in the control of nuclear arms in the N.A.T.O. Alliance roughly along the lines of the M.L.F., if not exactly on those lines, which would allow West Germany to feel secure. The second condition was that there must be an irrevocable international agreement to bring about the reunification of Germany. It is quite clear that this statement comes at a most unfortunate time. There have been a number of discussions during the last twelve months on this subject of non-proliferation, and Her Majesty's Government have stated on many official occasions that they attached the greatest importance to the solution of this particular problem.
Recently there has been a most hopeful development in the United States. The President has set up a committee to advise him on this problem, under the chairmanship of Mr. Gilpatrick, a former high official in the administration of defence in the United States. The report of the Committee has not yet been published but enough of an outline has appeared that is not being contradicted either by the President or by his entourage, and we may be certain that the main recommendations of the Gilpatrick Committee on non-proliferation place a very high priority on the solution of this particular problem.
It has been suggested, by Senator Kennedy, and also, it is assumed on good authority, by the Gilpatrick Committee in its recommendations, that the President should attempt to bring about a nonproliferation agreement, even if it means giving priority to such an agreement over any rearrangement for the control of nuclear arms within the Western Alliance.
It is this priority recommendation, which was made public by Senator Kennedy, which has produced a counter-move in Bonn. The German Foreign Office sent Herr Knappstein, the German Ambassador in Washington, post-haste to see Mr. Dean Rusk and to protest most vigorously against any such concession. What were they protesting against? They were protesting against giving a high priority to an international agreement to end proliferation of nuclear arms. This is quite consistent with the policy which the West German Government

1205
have pursued for many years, to sabotage every attempt at real agreement against a spread of nuclear arms.
Whenever a hopeful suggestion has been made, Bonn has been the traditional opponent. It was the opponent of any suggestion from the Labour Party, when we were in Opposition under the leadership of Mr. Gaitskell, to have a treaty for the freezing of nuclear weapons on either side. Bonn has been the leading opponent of any suggestions which have come from the Labour Party when in Opposition to have a European security pact. It has been the leading opponent against any suggestion that has come from the Conservative Government, when in office, to try to reach an agreement, with the Soviet Government on the control of nuclear arms.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House will remember the famous occasion when Mr. Harold Macmillan went to Moscow. He agreed to a joint bulletin, published in Moscow, which stated that an agreement between East and West on the control of nuclear arms and proposals for disengagement "are worthy of serious study and should be seriously looked at". That was enough for Mr. Macmillan to be attacked by heavy fire from the Bonn Government. In fact all he did was sign the communiqué and from then on he forgot the proposal. The suggestions that have been made in Washington, and the proposals put forward again and again by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to give high priority to a treaty of non-proliferation, are now again being attacked by the Bonn Government.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make it quite clear, when he speaks tomorrow, that the British Government, at any rate, will give full support to the proposals that have been made by the Gilpatrick Committee and by people like Senator Kennedy, that priority will be given to any non-proliferation treaty, and that nothing will be done with the help of Her Majesty's Government to rearrange matters of nuclear control within N.A.T.O. in such a way that it will he a hindrance to a wider East-West agreement later on, which is the only sure foundation of international peace.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Whilst I agree with the point
1206
made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) about seeking to prevent proliferation, before he leaves Germany would he not also add to the catalogue which he has just given of German thoughts on this matter, that Germany is the only country which has accepted the A.B.C. agreements imposed by the German Government themselves?
Mr. Mendelson: I should have thought that that would not really belong to the kind of catalogue which I was giving, because I was giving a catalogue of sabotage emanating from the Bonn Government. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) wants me to add all the useful things that have been done in various capitals including Bonn, or have been imposed upon the Bonn Government, I could do so, but I took it that we all know that the Government in Bonn was by treaty bound not to manufacture nuclear arms, and I did not want to waste the time of the House by repeating that.
Mr. Michael Foot: Would my hon. Friend agree that the German Government gave approval to these qualifications only in order that they could get agreement to German rearmament?
Mr. Mendelson: This is perfectly correct, and that is what I had in mind when I said that at the time of the Governments of Mendes-France, Winston Churchill and Anthony Eden, these conditions were imposed upon the West German Government.
I should now like to turn to the other main subject of this debate, the dangerous position in Vietnam and South-East Asia. I want to do so first of all by dissent from the manner and tone in which the Prime Minister dealt with this subject. He was determined to give a very quiet opening to this debate, and who can blame him for it? He obviously wanted to keep the temperature down, but during the course of his speech, which opened the debate and was bound to set the tone of it, he left out a great many of the most dangerous elements in the position today and failed to mention others in any detail whatsoever. It is true that he said in general terms that the situation was very dangerous and that we had to do all we could to try to make peace in Vietnam. Everybody will agree with him

1207
in that. But when he came to enumerate some of the factors influencing the situation he was rather one-sided.
Therefore, if we are to get a realistic picture of the dangers which are threatening, we have to begin with the policies of intransigence on more than one side which are so prevalent, and the first factor which we must mention is the determination of the United States Administration to bring about a tremendous and increased military buildup in Vietnam. Of this there was no mention in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There is now serious discussion of seconding another 100,000 soldiers to Vietnam, together with the necessary additional air support.
There is discussion in serious political circles in Washington of the possibility of extending the bombing operation to Hanoi and Haiphong. Of this we have heard nothing in the debate. Of course, this was essentially in the Prime Minister's mind when he said that we must not miscalculate the potential dangers of bringing in other powers. But it is the duty of the House, in a debate of this kind, to spell out these dangers and not only to refer to them in general terms.
There is equal danger of intransigence on the other side. I fully agree with the Prime Minister that there are some people who have been calling for peace in Vietnam who now seem to be calling for victory for the Vietcong. I think that they are misguided. If this country and the Government of this country are to play a useful part in bringing about peace in Vietnam, they cannot possibly wish one side or the other to win. Those people who call themselves peace lovers and who think that they are particularly entitled to embrace the term "peace" do no service to a peaceful solution of the Vietnamese problem by trying to change the emphasis of making peace into one of support for the Vietcong—one side against the other. Therefore, I am interested in putting forward such proposals and seeing such policies enacted as would not lead to the victory of anybody in that war-torn, tragic country but would bring about a situation in which peace can be properly arranged.
It is, however, at this point that we have to fill in some more details which were
1208
missing from the Prime Minister's speech. In all the discussion which has taken place in recent weeks about the difficulties to get through to a discussion with Hanoi, there is one factor which must be stated with great emphasis. The policy of Her Majesty's Government over so many weeks of completely identifying this country with all the operations and policies of the United States Administration have been gravely at fault and has made a major contribution in inhibiting Her Majesty's Government from playing the rôle of mediator.
Week after week my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was urged in some organs of the Press and by many of his own supporters not to give such fulsome support to the United States Government's operations, to their policy of extending the war, and not to support the bombing operations against North Vietnam. By turning down these suggestions, he made it more difficult for his own Government to play a useful part in bringing about mediation and negotiations on Vietnam. It will not serve either truth or a real analysis of the problem to suppress this critique which must be somewhere at the beginning of any analysis of the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government.
We have not had much help in this respect from the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), who has just returned to the Chamber. He concentrated his brief contribution on Vietnam on a semi-technical dissertation of what might have been done and what might not have been done when the Government sent a junior member of the Government to Vietnam. The right hon. Gentleman's speech was empty and devoid of any real content. It was a continuation of the bizarre attitude of the Opposition throughout these discussions on Vietnam over the last four months when they had made no constructive contribution whatsoever to the solution of the problem. They have concentrated all the time on trying to make a little party capital in the hope that there might be some disagreement on the Government side.
Mr. Maudling rose—
Mr. Mendelson: I will give way in a moment. We are glad to see the right hon. Gentleman back in the Chamber. I want to give him the chance to say more; he said so little this afternoon.

1209
The Opposition have either tried to make a little capital out of the situation, or, until they found that the country did not support them, indulged in niggling and unworthy criticism of the methods used by the Government when they knew that it did not help the situation. Even when my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) was in Hanoi, when they should have been helpful to him, they did everything they could to make his mission more difficult.
Mr. Maudling: If the hon. Gentleman regards our support of the Foreign Secretary's policy as bizarre, we do not.
Mr. Mendelson: The Foreign Secretary must be allowed to speak for himself and to tell us what view he takes of the "support" offered by the Opposition.
During this latest important episode, the Foreign Secretary made a clear statement in the country giving his full authority to the mission undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Leek and deliberately spoke with authority as Foreign Secretary in that difficult situation. That was the time when the right hon. Member for Barnet and the Leader of the Opposition spoke in the country about falling into traps. Instead, they should have exercised a certain amount of self-discipline in helping the Foreign Secretary in what he was doing.
Therefore, the task of producing a proper analysis of our policy and of making constructive suggestions reverts to the supporters of my right hon. Friends. They have tried to do their best and they must continue to do so. The past is relevant in analysing the future, and that is why I have mentioned a few details of the past. Without considering them, the future cannot be viewed correctly. What can we do to help to bring about a solution of this conflict? I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister overstated the position this afternoon when he said that Moscow could not be one of the capitals through which an approach to Hanoi could be made. I do not accept his statement on this point. I agree with him that it is extremely difficult to find the right approach, but I believe that the key to the situation is as much in Moscow as it is in Washington and Hanoi.
1210
May I give two important reasons why that is my conviction. The Prime Minister referred to Mr. Gromyko's visit to London. Members of the Government know well, as do members of the Opposition—certainly the right hon. Member for Barnet and the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne), who was one of the hosts to Mr. Gromyko when we had a meeting upstairs—that when Mr. Gromyko was asked in semi-public at the meeting of 200 Members, and in private by several hon. Members, why he could not be persuaded to be more active in co-operating with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to resume his work as co-Chairman, he gave two reasons, only one of which was stated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister this afternoon.
Mr. Gromyko's first reason invariably was that, as long as the sovereign State of North Vietnam was subjected every day to major bombing operations, it was not possible to take any action of that kind. He said "You cannot go to Hanoi while the bombing continues and suggest that you are acting as a neutral co-Chairman". The second reason which he gave was the one quoted by the right hon. Member for Barnet, namely, that the matter was up to the countries most directly concerned.
There is other evidence which goes to show that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was not complete in his exposition when he said that the road at the moment is not through Moscow. One of the hopeful things that have happened in the last fortnight is the visit of Mr. Harriman to Moscow and the long discussions that are now taking place there. It has been noted that Mr. Harriman has postponed his departure by a full week and although statements have emanated from the State Department warning us not to attach too much importance to those discussions, they are obviously semi-negotiations and not merely discussions.
Mr. Harriman has long experience—this might be a point that will interest the right hon. Member for Barnet and would interest the Leader of the Opposition if he were present—and long associations with the Soviet Union. It could be said that he is persona grata in Moscow. That did not prevent the President of the United States sending

1211
him on a special mission. The President of the United States did not regard it as a disqualification for Mr. Harriman that he had long associations with the Soviet Union, starting during the war and continuing up to the present. He thought that it might be a good idea to send a man who had good contacts in Moscow with the Soviet leaders. There is in this a lesson to events nearer home which might be noted. I believe that Mr. Harriman is doing useful work.
If that is so, it is clear that Moscow is in a position of great delicacy, and I should like to make a firm suggestion to the Government about how a way out might be found. It is quite clear that the Soviet Government will not act in Hanoi as long as the bombing continues. I therefore make an earnest appeal to Her Majesty's Government to come out publicly with a statement in which they say that the bombing should cease to improve the international situation. This is now being done in leading articles in The Times, it is being urged by the New York Times and it is being said in the Senate of the United States every day. I cannot see why it should not now be voiced in the proper terms by one ally to another.
Jointly with the proposition that the bombing should cease, we should be getting busy with the co-Chairman suggesting that there should be, not an aggravation of the attitude of Hanoi, but that after a while, after the bombing had ceased unconditionally, in the new atmosphere which was thereby created, the Soviet Government might be persuaded to help us to make a joint approach.
One thing of which I am certain is that unless the bombing ceases, and, above all, if the dangerous proposals now being put forward in Washington that the bombing should be advanced to Hanoi and Haiphong are not reversed, we might be on the edge of that international military conflict of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister warned us today.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Would not my hon. Friend agree that that proposal has, in effect, been put by the Peace Mission?
Mr. Mendelson: I agree that the Peace Mission—and this was an improvement
1212
in the policy of Her Majesty's Government which I very much welcomed—at its first meeting put forward a proposal that ought to be made in Washington; but because of the difficulties appertaining to the work of the Peace Mission, the suggestion has never been made to the President. It has been mentioned only in a communiqué published in London. We cannot expect the President of a great Power to act on communiqués published in another capital.
What I am talking about is a serious approach from Government to Government by methods which must be determined by the Foreign Secretary but publicly made in this country and linked to the proposal that this would help not only to improve the international atmosphere, but also to get the co-operation of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Government in further approaches as joint co-Chairmen.
Sir Cyril Osborne: While I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member has said, may I ask whether he would not agree that part of the Moscow problem of using its influence to secure peace is that Peking believes that war is inevitable between the Communist and the capitalist worlds and that therefore, as Peking has a great influence in the Vietnam war, it is extremely difficult for Moscow to exercise the influence which it would like to use?
Mr. Mendelson: That is precisely what I had in mind in suggesting that as long as the bombing does not stop, the Soviet Government cannot in any way be active in Hanoi. The Soviet Government cannot act even if they wanted to, precisely because, as the hon. Member suggests, they would immediately be accused by Peking of betraying Hanoi. That is why the bombing must stop first before any activation of the Soviet co-Chairman can be helpful.
More than that, however, the bombing must be stopped unconditionally, because no proud country under bombing would agree to negotiations. The proposals now being made in unofficial circles in Washington to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong must be opposed by all the Governments which are in alliance with the United States so that they never become actual.

1213
At the same time, privately and in many other ways, I think that the Soviet Government could be persuaded, after the bombing has stopped, to help with the negotiations in Hanoi. If the authority that I have for this statement does not mislead me, it is reported in Washington that one of the subjects under discussion between Mr. Harriman and the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union is precisely this point: what are the conditions under which the Soviet Government might again play a somewhat more active part in intervening in Hanoi?
I should like the Government to give a helpful reply to these proposals when they answer the debate. I assure them that they would have the overwhelming support of the people of this country, no flatter who represent them in this House, if they came forward with such concrete proposals.
I draw to a conclusion with one final point. It is clear that if we are to make a contribution in gaining peace, we must not desire the victory of either side but we must keep in mind that there is a twin problem involved in Vietnam which will occur again and again in other countries. There is, first, the desire of people to change their political system. As men's minds cannot be controlled, we shall often meet situations in which people want to move in one direction or the other politically, and they must be entitled to do so. Any general veto upon where the people of Vietnam might or might not go, pronounced either in this House or elsewhere, would be completely illegitimate. It would be returning to the days of Metternich in South-East Asia and we would not have the power that Metternich had when he exercised his veto in Europe. It is a mistaken policy.
There is, however, a second part to this aspect of the problem, and that is the legitimate concern put forward by the President of the United States and the American Administration. They are, naturally, concerned that if there were to be a political change in Vietnam or in other similar countries, that political change would quickly be followed by a worsening of the strategic military position of the United States. It is a proper concern of the President of the United States, as he sees the strategic military future of his country—we do not have to tell him how to see it, and we do
1214
not have to share his view—to try to safeguard what he regards as important from that point of view.
That is the situation which must be met, and in my view it can be met in only one way. That is that politically the people of Vietnam must be allowed to choose their own future and other countries must do the same. If some want to move to the Right, they must be entitled to do so. If some want to move to the Left, equally they must be entitled to do so.
We must, however, immediately set up machinery by which, after the gradual withdrawal of troops has taken place, as suggested by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in a statement one afternoon from the Dispatch Box and repeated recently in the country, after a successful peace conference, there must be the introduction of such forces under international supervision as would make quite certain that the part of Vietnam that is now governed from Saigon does not automatically go over to a hostile alliance. To this we are as much committed by the general policy of the Government as is the President of the United States. This is something in which we should support the president and it is something to which I would give my full support.
At the same time, however, the policy which has been pursued by the American Administration has had, tragically, the opposite effect. Far from making more certain that the other half of Vietnam does not become too close an ally of the power in South-East Asia that America most fears, bombing operations, the cruelty on both sides, the real tragedy which afflicts the lives of many people in Vietnam, the fact that many new weapons have been tried out against a coloured population have contributed to playing into the hands of Peking.
In appealing in this concrete manner to Her Majesty's Government to make their contribution I have very much in mind in making my plea that we want to confirm our alliance with the United States of America. I am a firm supporter of that alliance. I can think of no British foreign policy which would make sense without it. But it is the right of an ally, I think hon. Members on both sides will agree, to have enough freedom of manoeuvre and independence of policy

1215
as to be able to state its own position, and yet co-operate, but criticise when criticism as necessary.
It is on those lines that I think this debate ought to proceed, frankly and freely. The Government ought to take note of what so many of their supporters feel, and if they pursue this new policy I have suggested they will have their reward not only in making a contribution to peace but in the support of millions of people in this country.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker: I shall listen with interest, as, I am sure, will hon. Members on both sides of the House, to the reply of the Government to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson). I am delighted to hear him say that he fully supports the American alliance and that he is all for peace and not victory in Vietnam. I think it is worth pointing out for the sake of the record that Mr. Harriman, since he first came to this country in 1941, has been a consistent supporter of his country's foreign policy whichever party in America has been in power; and though he became for a short period Governor of New York he always supported the American Government's international policy taken up by either party in the United States, which, I suggest, is a different comparison from that drawn by the hon. Member.
This debate, as a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, is somewhat unsatisfactory because it is drawn far too wide. I think we would all agree that the narrower a debate the better it is; also I myself shall be as brief as I possibly can.
I want to deal with three different parts of the world, considering as a thread connecting them the phrase "centres of dissolving power"—which is a phrase used, the hon. Member for Penistone may remember, at a conference we both attended in Poland some three or four months ago. It was interesting to have this idea raised in those circumstances, and I think it led them to feel, as we did, and as did my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who has had United Nations service, that we had a different
1216
approach to a number of these problems 15 or so years ago.
In the immediate post-war period our policy was based on the belief that upon the withdrawal of the colonial powers from various parts of the world they would be followed by the United Nations taking over and safeguarding the successor Governments from aggression, whether overt or covert, clandestine or subversive. Unfortunately, the experience of Czechoslovakia, Korea, Malaya, Cuba, Zanzibar have belied those hopes, and now Vietnam, as the latest and most immediate problem before this House, has brought again the fears that those hopes will again be belied, those hopes which were built up in the post-war years.
The next point I want to take is Vietnam, as a centre of dissolving French power, as it were, in the period of 1945 to 1954. It is a mistake, I feel, to suppose that, in that part of the world, or any other part of the world which the French or British or Dutch have occupied in their different ways, their influence has ended. I think myself that French influence will stay in Vietnam and that it will be of great benefit in the long run to the people of that country. My right hon. Friends have covered and will be covering in some detail the problem of Vietnam. They have been more responsible recently for British policy in that part of the world; but I may perhaps be forgiven, since I myself served at the Foreign Office at one time, for saying something about it; I cast my mind back to 1954 when Sir Anthony Eden obtained the Geneva Settlement in 1954, which was, perhaps, the year of his greatest achievements—that, and the establishment of Western European Union. Later that year he sent me to visit many of the countries of Asia and of South-East Asia, and I saw the leading statesmen, and they all welcomed the achievement of the Geneva Settlement, as it was then called. They were, however, all apprehensive about the possibilities of Chinese expansion and also of subversive activities throughout those areas.
It is strange, looking back, to remember how difficult it was to get the United States to take any practical interest in that part of the world and to remember how difficult it was then as, indeed, it

1217
still is, to get other Western Powers to take an interest or to become involved. It is one of the recurring problems of this country. My personal experience goes back to the League of Nations in 1935 declaring Italy an aggressor; and there was then all too little interest taken by other countries of Western Europe, and far too little was and is done by them to protect their friends and allies from aggression. Despite the lesson of Korea four years before—I am speaking of 1954 now—practically nothing was done in Vietnam, despite the knowledge of subversive action by what is now called the Vietcong south of the armistice line.
I would point out once again that the whole Western Alliance, and indeed the whole free world, is concerned with preventing the further spread of subversive anarchy in South-East Asia. The Prime Minister said in his speech today that it is a very difficult situation, and I am certain that we must back our allies, and look for every way to stop the bloodshed in that part of the world. When history comes to be written it will be found very difficult to say that the President of the United States has not done his utmost to try to find a way round these difficulties. He has offered to negotiate, and offered in a way which, three or four years ago, would, I think, possibly have been thought by sovereign States to be humiliating, but he has had the greatness and the courage to do what he has done, and I think we all have to respect him for it.
The next point I want to take is the Middle East; not the Near East as it is so often called, but the Arabian Peninsula which has been a centre of dissolving British—or rather, British-Indian—power in the last twenty years.
Looking back on the history of it, our original interest was that it lay on the line of communication first with the Persian Gulf and with India, and after that with the Suez Canal and Aden, the coaling station. Indeed, until comparatively recently—I think, 1935—Aden came under the Government of India and was only transferred then to the Colonial Office. So, until 1945 policy for the most part was made from Delhi. It was transferred to the Foreign Office here in 1947, with Indian independence, when the whole of the area came under
1218
the Foreign Office. During the same period oil was discovered in that area, both in the States with which we had a direct treaty relationship and also in Saudi Arabia, and so there was a common interest between them.
There was a book which I had the pleasure of reviewing recently, called "Eastern Arabian Frontiers", which tells the story in full. I shall not go into it, but I would make the point that in that period, since 1945, we have been preoccupied with other affairs, and new, direct responsibilities and circumstances led to insufficient attention being paid to that part of the world. One of the problems which have resulted has been insufficient delineation of frontiers, and that led to our conflict with Saudi Arabia. That conflict over the years is a great pity, because for so long the Kings of that country have been great friends of Britain. Ibn el Saud was among our best friends, and his sons, first King Saud and then King Feisal, have had very friendly personal relationships with this country.
I would point out to the Government, and to the Minister of State, who, I think, is to reply to this debate today, and who, if I may say so, made a very useful tour of that part of the world recently, that we should now make a particular effort to improve relations with the Saudis. I think in the last few years our relations with them have been better, but I think that a mission of a senior Minister to the Arabian Peninsula would be more productive of good than to other countries in the Near East. There was a recent visit by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aviation, who was the first Minister to visit Saudi Arabia since I went there in 1956. If the visit to which I have referred could include friendly visits to Saudi Arabia and the Trucial Coasts and South Arabia, again thereby linking up the whole area, it would be good. Since the unfortunate quarrel between the Trucial Sheiks and Saudi Arabia there have been a number of friendly visits by some of the Trucial Sheiks to Saudia Arabia when on pilgrimage which have led to better relations with Saudi Arabia.
These States, which are under British protection, and whose internal administration, and their health and education and other services depend equally with Saudi Arabia, on oil revenue, have many common interests. We should therefore go

1219
further and encourage a closer association between our friends and allies in the Persian Gulf and in South Arabia with Saudi Arabia. After all, their interests, both internal and external, are very much the same.
We should also help them, or prepare the way to help our friends in the Yemen when Egyptian aggression is forced out, as has been happening steadily during the last few months. I was in Jedda in 1956 just after the treaty between Saudi Arabia and the Yemen was signed. I think that we should now be ready to build on this and help our friends there to build on that treaty for the benefit of the Yemen, of Saudi Arabia and for our immediate responsibilities in South Arabia.
We must go on to stabilise this area which produces the main energy source, not just for this country, not just for the larger part of the Western world, but for almost the whole of the Eastern hemisphere. It is too little recognised that the policing of the area now called "east of Suez" has been carried out primarily by the British for the benefit of both trade and political stability of practically the whole of the free world. I commend to the Government the opportunity which now arises of following up and sending out a Minister who, by going round these areas, could do much to draw them further together for the benefit of themselves and of Britain.
My third point concerns a different part of the world, and that is Spain and her relationship with Gibraltar. This is not a "centre of dissolving power". It is possibly a point of "change of power". Here again the aim should be for closer association with, and co-operation in, Europe. If I might again go back in history; between 1939 and 1944 I was involved in Spain and in the Western Mediterranean. I had a number of Spaniards who had fought on both sides during the Civil War. They fought on our side during the 1939–45 war, and they all said the same thing, "Whatever else you do, do not start up the civil war again". They were prepared to go in on Hitler's line of communication when there was a German plan to go down and attack Gibraltar in 1942–43. They said, "If we do that, do not start up the civil war, because after the defeat of
1220
Germany the régime will ameliorate and change." It has not done so to a greater extent because, as I think is generally known, after the war certain Left-wing elements in the Socialist Party treated Spain as a pariah. This consolidated the regime and rallied many people who were friendly to us, many patriotic Spaniards, behind the regime. They disliked, as would most British, what they regarded as outside interference in their domestic politics.
Between 1951 and 1964 relations between Spain and this country improved considerably, to the benefit of the Spanish people, and of British holidays and trade. With the return of the Socialist Government in 1964, and the Prime Minister's speech in this House about this time last year, the Spanish realised that they had no friend in him. The cancellation of the joint manoeuvres and the refusal to allow them to buy frigates and arms, confirmed that there was a return to the old policies.
Listening to the Parliamentary Questions put to the Colonial Secretary, I often wonder whether he was consulted about all this, because he has certainly been left to carry the baby. The Spaniards were prompted to react in a way which was least harmful to Spain, namely, by blockading Gibraltar, and I must regret most strongly that Spain is taking it out of Gibraltar rather than out of Britain if she must take it out of somebody; and we are forced to support any defensive action by Her Majesty's Government because we do not believe that two wrongs make a right. It is regrettable that Gibraltar should be the exception to the improvement in British-Spanish relations. I am sure that it is a great grief to all the friends of the Spanish people—there are many on both sides of the House—who welcome this steady evolution in Spanish politics and economy—much of it is due to the extension of the O.E.C.D. to the affairs of Spain.
We are sad that the Spanish authorities are so vindictive over Gibraltar, to the acute detriment of good will between us all and hardship for the people of Gibraltar and the Spanish workers who earn their livelihood there. These actions over Gibraltar are losing Spain the support of many of her friends in this country. How much better it would be for Spain's relations with Gibraltar and with the British people if she now said,

1221
"We realise that this Socialist Government is only a temporary and final outburst in Britain" and withdrew all her restrictions. There would be an outburst of material benefit and good will between the three peoples—the British, the Spaniards and the Gibraltarians—which would show up the foolish dogmatic and outdated vendettas of certain Socialist elements in this country who, as so often before, luxuriate safely at home in futile impotence while others suffer for their mistakes. But if the Spanish authorities continue with these ill-judged counter measures, we must all be behind the Government in the measure they take to support our friends in Gibraltar.
There is, of course, one special point that I should like to make on this. I think that Spain is understandably interested in the future constitutional status of Gibraltar. I believe that this is of legitimate concern to her. Ever since I served on a committee under a previous Labour Government, from 1948 to 1950, I have believed that Gibraltar might be given some status equivalent to that of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe that this can be reconciled with the Treaty of Utrecht. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) wrote an interesting letter on this point to The Times some months ago, and it was mentioned in the Press, I think yesterday, as being something which is being considered by our friends in Gibraltar.
I believe that such a status would benefit the people of Gibraltar, and would remove the fears of the Spaniards that they might one day find a hostile State on their doorstep. I therefore urge the Government to consider this and to discuss it with the Spanish authorities in due course, but not, of course, under duress.
Out of all this, I make two quick points. The dispute with Spain and Gibraltar shows once again the foolishness of Europe quarrelling over points which, given a modicum of good will and commonsense on both sides, could be solved without any delay, for the benefit of all. We are trying to unite Europe. We believe that thereby lies the best way of preserving our way of life. If we are going to do it, we must surely find a way to resolve this sort of problem
1222
within the community of Europe, within the Council of Europe, the O.E.C.D. or by direct confidential negotiations.
I believe that here is an opportunity for the Foreign Office to start making approaches. I am sure that the Iberian Peninsula, as much as the countries of Eastern Europe about which the Prime Minister talked today, is an essential part of Europe in which we all believe. Like the Prime Minister, I visit these countries behind the so-called Iron Curtain. I know, as does the hon. Member for Penistone, who was there earlier this year, that they such as Poland and Hungary and Czechoslovakia are great European countries, and I hope that one day in my lifetime they will be part of the full community of Europe. In the meantime, for Heaven's sake let us find a way of reconciling the position of Spain over Gibraltar, and not get into these painful disputes.
Lastly, in all these three areas of which I have spoken there is both a Foreign Office and a Commonwealth or Colonial Office interest. For long I have believed, with some reason, that the polices in relation to such areas are often not adequately co-ordinated in Whitehall. We must therefore work faster towards creating a Ministry of External Affairs, with Commonwealth Ministers charged with the duty of protecting Commonwealth interests within that Ministry.
The three areas that I have mentioned—Vietnam and Malaysia; South Arabia and Aden with the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia, and Gibraltar and Spain—are examples of areas in respect of which we need closer departmental co-operation than has existed in the past. Some advance has been made in the last ten years, but much remains to be done if we are to prevent our friends overseas being harmed by a conflict of departmental policies in the United Kingdom, as in my opinion exists at the moment over Gibraltar.
8.20 p.m.
Mr. Roy Hattersley: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) made some criticisms of the way in which the House organises its foreign affairs debates. I agree with him in general, but I am glad that we are able to discuss a wide range of foreign

1223
policy today because, at the beginning of my speech, I want to essay the back bencher's most difficult and sometimes unpopular task, that is, to give unreserved support—"unqualified" would be an unfortunate word—for one aspect of Government policy. I hope that the rules of debate will allow me to be a little more acceptable by striking a rather more discordant note at the end of my speech, when I refer to Europe.
I have listened to virtually every speech made in the House today—certainly every one dealing with the problems of Vietnam, and each speech, in almost exactly the same way and in exactly the same terms, demonstrated and epitomised the dilemmas and difficulties that the Government and the House are facing. There was in every speech a great deal of similarity in terms of basic principle. Practically everybody agreed that this was a nasty little war; that this was a war which must be solved by a negotiated settlement; that in this context winning had no meaning.
The right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was careful to say to the Russian Foreign Secretary and to the House that the Americans would not lose—specifically refraining from saying that the Americans would win. All of us agree with those principles. All of us agree with those basic assumptions. I suspect that everyone in the House agrees with the eight suggested criteria laid down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) about the way in which we should approach the problem of bringing about the right sort of settlement and agreement.
But the task which faces the Government, and the Government alone, is not agreeing to a set of principles but getting that set of principles carried out. The argument that we are really carrying on this afternoon is one not about aims but about the judgment exercised in the execution of those aims—how those aims should have been executed and how they have been. This point was made clear by one example from the growing body of dissent to American foreign policy in America itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) overestimates and overstates the amount of criticism in the United States
1224
of that Administration's policy. My hon. Friend should know that when the American Legislature considered the latest appropriation for the Vietnam war only three members of the Senate and seven members of the House of Representatives voted in opposition. Nevertheless, there is a body of dissent.
Mr. Mendelson: Even from his brief Parliamentary experience my hon. Friend will be aware that the full body of criticism of one's own Administration does not necessarily show itself in the vote at the end of the evening.
Mr. Hattersley: I am equally aware that the system of whipping, division organising and party management is a good deal less strong in the United States than it is in this country. I suspect that if my hon. Friend were a member of that Legislature rather than this he would have voted for the Government rather less frequently than he has voted for them during the last nine months, because in that assembly dissent is more easily expressed and more readily accepted in the Division Lobby than it is on the Floor of the House here.
There is a lot of dissent, much of it disreputable dissent for which hon. Members on both sides of the House would have no time. There is the Isolationist dissent which asks, "Why our money?" or "Why our sons?". One of the most critical was the slogan which appeared in virtually every newspaper while I was in Washington a few months ago on behalf of a thousand priests and clergymen of every denomination, which simply read, "In God's name stop this war now." The significance of that slogan, if slogan it is, is that it repeats almost exactly word for word the final sentence used by the Foreign Secretary at the recent Oxford "teach-in". The difference between my right hon. Friend and that body of dissenters in the United States and other dissenters in this country is that it is my right hon. Friend's task and travail to put this sort of principle into operation.
I want to spend some time examining how the many intiatives taken by this Government have helped to bring that about. One point should be made clear: there has been a great deal of criticism, much of it totally unwarranted, about the visit of my hon. Friend the Member for

1225
Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to North Vietnam 10 days ago. The part of that criticism that was direct and straightforward—I ignore the innuendo—was based on the fact that my hon. Friend some years ago produced a famous and highly informed pamphlet on Vietnam. It expressed views which were different from mine. I disagreed vocally, and continually, with those views. Notwithstanding that, it has never struck me for a moment that my hon. Friend's visit to Vietnam, 10 days ago, could do anything but good, and was anything but right. It never struck me for a moment that he would omit or add to the brief that he was given by one jot or ignore any of the obligations placed upon him.
There is great significance in the endeavours that the Government have made. First, the Soviet Union to a great extent, and the Communist Chinese to a lesser extent, must be susceptible to world opinion of one sort or another. The Vietnamese war is in no small measure concerned with general Asian policy, and it is not possible for the war to continue with the tacit agreement of the Soviet Union and the support of China if the position is firmly established that aggression lies in Peking and Hanoi, and not in Washington. One of the greatest achievements of the Vietnamese and the Communist Chinese over the last 18 months has been to suggest, with great success, that despite the enormous American restraint between 1959 and 1964—despite their delay in taking active reprisals—aggression came from the United States.
Surely, what we have proved beyond all doubt by our constant attempts to get all the parties round the conference table and what has been proved by the continually bellicose attitude of Peking and Hanoi is that aggression in this area is not the sole responsibility of the United States. Surely, all our efforts have proved that, and nothing but good can come from it. I do not mean good by means of aiding our allies but good in terms of bringing the war to an end. I am convinced that one of the ways it can be brought to an end is by making it clear that this is not a black and white, East-West issue, that there is blame and culpability on both sides and, by our efforts over the last months, we have shown that some of the blame and culpability lies in Hanoi and Peking.
1226
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln and many other speakers from this side. It is not possible for negotiations of this sort, which we all want, need and desire, to go on while the Communist Chinese and the North Vietnamese are so convinced that they are winning the war. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House a week ago, putting it exactly, that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions had found in Hanoi:
"the evident conviction… that the prospects of victory were too imminent for it to be worth their while to forsake the battlefield for the conference table."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 783.]
That put it well and exactly, but it had been put better by the Deputy Prime Minister of North Vietnam, who said that the entire Commonwealth peace initiative was an "attempt by the Americans to escape from their inevitable defeat". Nobody in his right mind wants this war to go on a day longer than necessary, but we must face the fact that while the North Vietnamese are winning the war, our chances and opportunities of getting them and their supporters and partners to the conference table are a good deal worse than if they felt that this was their only possible means of bringing the conflict to any sort of conclusion.
They are, of course, winning the war. I am told that before the monsoons are over they will be in occupation of Bihn Dihn. Already, the Mekong Delta is virtually under their control and Western papers have told in the last five days of the famous North Vietnamese "War Map" which shows the purple lines of Vietcong infiltration moving week by week further south. These are not ideal conditions in which to expect them to negotiate.
Hon. Members on both sides still have to face the fact that it will be difficult to get them round the conference table after they have been convinced that the war cannot be successfully terminated in any other way. Probably, bombing is not the way to do it. There are moral as well as military objections to bombing. The moral objections are largely absolved by the precise, almost incredible care which the United States have used to limit their bombing to whatever military targets they think are necessary. There

1227
is the strange, almost Alice-in-Wonderland quality about American preoccupation with avoiding attacking anything remotely like civilian targets.
All peace-loving people should pay some sort of strange tribute to a military power which does not bomb rocket installations whose purpose is to shoot down its fighter bombers, because it feels that they are too near a major city. This is an almost incredible development in military history and something which we should put on record and which we should all pay tribute to. Nevertheless, irrespective of the Americans' great concession—
Mr. Heffer: Where did my hon. Friend get this information that there has been pinpoint bombing of purely military objectives? Did he see reports in the Sun newspaper—certainly not a Communist newspaper—which gave full details of the terrible effects of the bombing on the civilian population?
Mr. Hattersley: I take my hon. Friend's point. If I have given the impression, the altogether ludicrous impression, that this bombing has gone on without some destruction of civilian life and property, of course I withdraw it. The point on which I insist is that the American military authorities have gone to some trouble to limit the civilian damage, death and injury as much as they can. Of course, my hon. Friend is right to say that it is not possible to follow this up and exclude every civilian from injury, death or damage. But I confirm and insist that there has been great determination on the part of the American Administration to minimise this as much as possible.
Notwithstanding the moral provisos, the real factor of the bombing is that it will not win the war. Heavy bombing does not undermine the morale of a people, and it may stiffen it. There is a case for saying that the bombing has convinced other nations in Asia that the Americans mean business, that American promises will be kept and that American protection is something on which one can rely. A rather fulsome open tribute by the Thai Foreign Minister was to the effect that the bombing in Vietnam would save not only Vietnam but the entire free world. This is evidence of the support
1228
which many of the non-Communist countries have for America, which they believe underwrites and confirms their future free existence.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House who say, as I do, that we want a negotiated peace and that a negotiated peace can only come about when the Vietcong acknowledge that there is no better alternative way, must support the entry of large numbers of American troops into South Vietnam. Some of my hon. Friends have spoken this afternoon about the possibility in terms of horror, disagreement and opposition. But if they subscribe as I do to the belief that a negotiated peace can come about only when we can negotiate from a position of strength, they must see that it may be a necessity. Supports of Government policy and of the policy of the American Administration are to some degree conditioned by basic reflexes and reactions.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone I have no hesitation in saying that I support entirely and completely the Atlantic Alliance and all the things for which it stands. Indeed, I go further. I am determinately enthusiastic about our alliance with America. I feel we owe an enormous debt to the Americans and have an enormous amount to gain from being allied with them. I do not mean by that that I feel bought by the dollar loan or feel the need for the support of the nuclear umbrella, but that there are good, positive and enormous advantages in continuing our permanent and detailed alliance with the Americans. This is one of the stumbling blocks which many hon. Members like me feel when we consider Britain and her attitude towards Europe and other economic blocs. They suggest that we must choose in some way between Europe and America and Europe and the Commonwealth.
I shall conclude by making three or four comments about what I regard as Britain's future as a European Power and her future relations with Europe and the Economic Community. I have said and confirm that I am to a degree critical of what I regard as a lack of enthusiasm for Europe among members of the Government. I have said and confirm that I that the Government could look at Europe with a more positive, determined and creative eye. Of course the Prime Minister is right to say that entry to

1229
Europe at the moment is not a practicability and that to sign the Treaty of Rome and negotiate afterwards is nonsense. Of course, there must be a great deal of preparation before we make concrete proposals and positive steps are taken to become a full member of the Community, but there are some things which we should agree in preparation for it.
If we are to gain from the enormous advantages which Europe could present, and gain from the benefit which such an enormous market would give us, we have an obligation to ourselves and Europe at least to take decisions which will make it harder for us to get in once the door is open.
First, we must convince ourselves that Europe is not simply a customs union in which low or high tariffs are the object of existence, but that it is a creative, viable economic plan and integrated unit. I believe that the community has enormous opportunities to offer the people of Britain and that we could play a large part in the community without prejudicing the sort of relationship we now have with the United States.
Were this country to have to choose between Europe and America I should find it an agonising choice, but I probably would choose America. At the moment we have everything to gain by having this relationship with both and I believe that our Commonwealth partners have most to gain by it too. Ghana and Nigeria are already doing their best to cement their own relations with the Community with a view to obtaining the benefits of aid and trade which membership would provide.
I urge the Government not to be restrictive, because I do not believe that we have to choose between one bloc and another. I urge the Government to develop greater enthusiasm for our membership of the Community. I also urge them—although I appreciate that I need not do so because their policies during the last nine months have shown their desire to do this—to show continued enthusiastic support for American foreign policy in Asia. It is in no way contradictory to Britain's potential rôle in Europe.
8.41 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: Many hon. Members have pointed out that
1230
winning the war in Vietnam carries no real advantage. We must realise, however, that losing it could be an absolute disaster for the West.
I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said and, like him, I was recently in the United States. I talked with many people in most parts of that great country about foreign affairs for the eight weeks I was there. I believe that the people of the United States are, by and large, solidly behind their President over Vietnam. America is today far more one country than has ever been before. This is presumably due to the jet engine and the spread of television. I found that the majority of people there take much the same view about external affairs, whether they are in Syracuse or Seattle.
The strength of the President of the United States stems partly from the fact that as a Democratic Party President he has taken over Republican foreign policy—in the same way as the present Socialist Prime Minister here has taken over Conservative foreign policy. [Interruption.] Doing so obviously strengthens the position of both the President and the right hon. Gentleman. The Americans are determined to win in Vietnam, but I agree that, as yet, they do not quite know how to do so.
We do not have nearly enough time to discuss foreign policy in the House. We have just completed 117 hours on the Finance Bill. The maximum amount of time spent this Session on foreign affairs is 13 hours, the debate today and tomorrow, and in this Session we have had only some 13 hours to discuss Commonwealth affairs. I appreciate that the control of finance is a vital function of Parliament. I suggest, however, that the pressures of external affairs on our economy are equally vital and that the House should have as much time to discuss these external pressures on internal matters as is spent on other important subjects.
The same applies to defence. We spend six to seven days a year discussing defence. About the same amount of time is spent on that subject in the other place. Our opposite numbers in the United States, in the House of Representatives, spend two and a half months

1231
in discussion in the House Armed Service Committee and the House Military Affairs Sub-Committee. The Senate spends about the same amount of time followed by a four or five days debate. I suggest that many internal financial matters could be discussed in Committee upstairs so that more time would be available on the Floor of the House for discussing issues which really matter and which really affect our internal affairs. At present the external pressures affecting our internal affairs are only rarely discussed.
Britain's internal position is one of weakness, and I believe that the world is heading for a major crisis. Unfortunately we in Parliament are only given time to discuss some of these matters, so I will mention only two major issues; Europe and the Indian Ocean area.
In Europe our weakness is obvious. It is that we have far too small a home market. The disastrous effect on our space and aircraft industry of the policies in the last year has highlighted this weakness. We have a small home market of 53 million people. We could produce the TSR2, but at astronomical cost. America, with its enormous home market, is able to produce its opposite number, the F111, at relatively low cost. If we had a home market of that magnitude we could compete with America in many ways. Our markets must be enlarged—this is a fundamental fact and three alternatives or a combination of three alternatives have been suggested in order to accomplish this aim.
The first is the Commonwealth. This is an organisation with more than 600 million people. It is one of the largest expanding markets in the world, but it is a difficult market. The Commonwealth economics are no longer complementary to our economy. They have to protect their own industries. Commonwealth trade, both import and export, has shrunk to about 30 per cent. of our total trade, but the Government are to be congratulated on setting up the Commonwealth Export Council and the various committees covering the various sectors of the Commonwealth. It was pointed out by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in a recent debate that the Commonwealth still represents some 25 per cent. of the free
1232
world's trade, so there is plenty of room for increase.
Two things must be said here. First, that trade follows investment, as I am sure, both sides of the House will agree. The Finance Bill will make investment in the developing countries of the Commonwealth far more difficult than it has been in the past Secondly, trade follows political stability, and I would again commend to the Treasury Bench the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in advocating insurance against political risk, which has already been undertaken by America, Germany and Japan.
The second alternative is Europe—a market of 170 million people, or even more, and growing each year. So far, we have always discussed Europe in economic terms, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has today pointed out that Europe, and our future with Europe, is also a political and strategic question. I hope that the Government will now come clean and say what kind of Europe they want. The Prime Minister this afternoon said that it was wrong to interfere in the quarrels now going on in the Common Market, and I agree, but it is up to this House and to the leaders on all sides to tell the country what their view is of the political future of Europe, and of our political future in Europe if we join the European Economic Community.
Is it, for example, to be a United States of Europe, the federal concept, such as I believe the Germans, the Italians and the Dutch would desire?
Mr. Robert Maxwell: And the Liberals.
Mr. Wall: And the Liberals. Or is it to be l'Europe des Patries that France would wish—
Mr. Maxwell: And the Tories.
Mr. Wall: The Prime Minister himself indicated that he came down in favour of this alternative, and I think that the vast majority of the people in this country would wish us to go into Europe provided we retained our sovereignty and had some association along the lines of l'Europe des Patries.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet pointed out, some form of

1233
compromise is possible. We should centralise as much as possible, but I would enter this caveat. I am certain that, whatever form of Europe we have, we do not want it run primarily by civil servants from Brussels with very little Parliamentary control. I believe that President de Gaulle has done a service to Europe and to this country by pointing the dangers inherent in the Commission's recent proposals, which were based on agricultural policy but which had very fundamental political implications.
The third alternative has to some extent already been referred to by the hon. Member for Sparkbrook; to increase our trade with the United States of America—a market of 190 million people, also rapidly expanding. There is a strong case for a closer link between the old Commonwealth, this country and the United States. The drawbacks are obvious. The United States would be the economic giant, but is she not already controlling the Canadian economy and, to a growing extent, the Australian and New Zealand economies, and penetrating deeply into our own?
The other drawback is that a closer link with the United States might cause in this country a depopulation somewhat similar to that in Ireland 60 or 70 years ago. Again, that might not be a bad thing. In fact, I should like to see a lot of the population of this country, which is grossly over-populated, going to the old Commonwealth and, if we were full partners, also to the United States of America.
Britain would, I believe, have a much greater influence if she were associated with the United States than she would have in association with Europe. If the Soviet Union joins Europe, as I believe she will eventually, this argument becomes even stronger. Britain would have a greater influence if she was closer to the United States than she would in a Europe which included the Soviet Union, as I hope and believe it will.
The £ and the dollar on their own are weak. We know the stresses and strains that there have been on the £. I have been told in America that there are equal stresses and strains on the dollar and that if the £ was devalued the dollar would follow very soon. But the £ associated
1234
with the dollar would become an unbeatable trading currency.
At the moment, the Kennedy Round negotiations are continuing in Geneva, though admittedly they are bogged down at the moment because of the difficulties about the European Economic Community. But may this not be an opportunity for us to construct a bridge between E.F.T.A. and the United States? It may well be that President de Gaulle does not want the Kennedy Round negotiations to be successful and that France might have kept the E.E.C. out of full agreement in the Kennedy Round. But my experience is that countries in the Free Trade Area are keen to lower tariffs and increase trade, and therefore there may well be a link worth strengthening between E.F.T.A. and the United States. That is, however, only a first step, because I am one of those who are convinced that an Atlantic Alliance—by which I mean a full political, economic and military alliance—between Great Britain, the old Commonwealth, Europe and the United States of America is inevitable and will probably come far sooner than most people seem to think.
I turn to my second point, and that is the matter which I believe is the most important problem in the world today and which really has not been mentioned during the debate. The basic problem facing the world is surely the extraordinary and astronomical birthrate in Asia. China, with 1,000 million people at the turn of the century and 700 million now; India, with a rapidly increasing population; the whole of Asia, by the end of the century, with more than the whole population of the world today. In other words, the number of hungry bellies in the world is increasing day by day.
What has the United Nations to say about this? U Thant, the Secretary-General, in his report on the Development Decade, pointed out that the gap in per capita income was widening. He said that the development of resources in the developing countries was being pushed back by progress in science and technology, because developed countries tend to invest more in these sophisticated concepts and therefore less in dealing with the relatively simple problems of the poorer countries. Thirdly, he said that help to the developing countries was,

1235
largely speaking, unorganised. He pointed out that two-thirds of the world's population share together less than one-sixth of the world's income.
I believe that this is the fundamental problem in front of us. What are we to do? Obviously we must try to give more Government aid, in the shape of grants and loans, and increase private enterprise investment, which is fundamentally far more important than Government aid.
What have we done? In our country we have cut down the chance of private enterprise investment because of our balance of payments problems. The situation is exactly the same in America. They are cutting down their private investment in developing territories because of the same balance of payments problems. That means that the gap between the haves and have-nots will get larger rather than smaller.
The problem is basically economic, but I believe it is also political. Is the world going to be able to evolve as we have evolved or as the Americans have evolved, or, because of the disparity between rich and poor, are we to have revolution on a world scale? If we have revolution on a world scale, the line-up is becoming clearer. On one side there will be Europe, the United States of America, some of the Latin American States, the Soviet Union, Southern Africa and Australasia against the rest of the world led by China. That, I suggest, is the recipe for complete and utter disaster, with on the one side the concentrated economic and military power of the world and on the other side the concentrated masses of the populations of the world.
I believe that we have, therefore, two tasks to perform, one military and one economic. The position is getting so desperate that it is absolutely essential to hold key areas of the world in order to buy time for economic development. The main key area of the world today is the Indian Ocean. It may well be that World War Three has started already in the Indian Ocean area, not a world war of an exchange of inter-continental ballistic missiles but a world war based on the subversion of existing governments and on guerilla warfare, a warfare at which the Chinese are the world's experts.
1236
If we consider the Indian Ocean as an arch, let us consider what is going on around the periphery. On the right hand side we have trouble in Vietnam, Malaysia and Burma, and India is unstable economically and politically. That is why we must back the Americans in Vietnam. If Vietnam goes, Malaysia goes. If Malaysia goes, probably some years later India goes. I believe that it is equally important to do what we can to back our Commonwealth allies in Malaysia.
As an aside, I would suggest that we should give some thought to giving recognition to some of the new Governments in exile in that part of the world. I refer to the South Moluccas and West Papua. These groups of islands have been forced into the Indonesian empire, partly by force by Indonesia, partly through appeasement of the great Powers and the United Nations. West Irian is now part of Indonesia, who holds the island by force. We should gain a good deal by assisting the Melanesians. I consider it wrong that West Papua should be under Indonesia. The Indonesians have not carried out their promises to the United Nations. Indeed, they have now left the United Nations, and it looks as if they never will. We should consider helping our friends in order to embarrass our enemies. It is clear that in that part of the world President Soekarno is our enemy and that a Melanesian Federation would be to our advantage.
Looking to the left-hand side of the arch brings me to the Middle East. There, again, surely we must back our friends. We are now getting a reputation for never fully supporting our friends, and that is why we are losing friends and why we have not got the support that we used to have among nations of the Middle East. I suggest that our friends in the Middle East are the Federal Government of Southern Arabia and the Rulers of the Trucial States. I suggest that Britain should back the Federal Rulers against the politicians of Aden. I suggest that, while doing all we can to democratise and economically reform the States, we should realise that the Rulers of the Trucial States are on our side and are our friends. I commend to the House the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) when he spoke

1237
about the importance of good understanding with Saudi Arabia and better relations with that great Arab nation.
Still looking at the left-hand side of arch, there is not time for me to say much about Chinese penetration of Africa, but I assure hon. Members that that is proceeding apace particularly in East and Central Africa. The Chinese have the big advantage that their object is destruction. The Soviet object is constructive in that the Russians want to construct Governments in their own likeness, as the West also tries to do. The Chinese however are out to destroy the status quo and so to strike a blow at both the West and the Soviet Union. The House will appreciate that destruction is very much easier than construction.
If the Indian Ocean is vital to us, then the two flanks are the vital areas. These two flanks are Southern Africa and Australia. In Southern Africa there are 4 million white men and in Australia 11 million. It is absolutely imperative for the future of western civilisation that these men should exercise political power in those two areas for some time to come. It is only under their leadership that the economic resources of Southern Africa and Australia can be deployed fully, and it is only if these resources are deployed that the standard of living in one case of the whole of the continent of Africa and in the other case of South-East Asia can be raised. Therefore, here again I believe that the four million whites in Southern Africa and the 11 million in Australia are our friends and should be backed, whatever disagreements we have about some of their policies.
But it would be wrong to suggest that movements arising in Asia can be for long held in check by force. Obviously, we must have a forceful policy of building up the standard of living of these people. These hungry bellies must be filled. How? There is no time to develop the theme but I believe that we should concentrate more on agriculture and much less on prestige things like steel plants and civil airlines. Agriculture is what produces the food that fills the bellies.
Western aid should be better co-ordinated. For instance, France channels E.E.C. aid to the former French colonies. If we were to co-ordinate our aid more, we could perhaps bring in countries like Switzerland which has large investments
1238
in India and Africa. Far too little aid is given anyway but we could make much better use of what is given, both by co-ordination and a clear system of priorities.
Stable commodity prices would do more to help many small countries than almost anything else and, broadly speaking, trade is better than aid. We have therefore two tasks: first, militarily we must hold certain key areas; secondly, most important of all, we must see that the disparity between the too rich and the too poor is checked and the balance altered so that the good things that God gave us are spread more equally among mankind.
9.0 p.m.
Lady Tweedsmuir: This has been a serious and very interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) reflected the feelings of both sides when he asked for more time for debates on foreign affairs. To me, there appear to be deserts of Parliamentary time when we have to deal with the Government's unwieldy Finance Bill and do not have sufficient opportunity in the House to discuss what is really the major subject.
Almost every speaker has inevitably concentrated on Vietnam, and I want to speak on this too before dealing with the other two important issues which have engaged the attention of hon. Members—the United Nations and our relations with Europe. I did not hear the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker). I understand that he spoke about the Arabian peninsula and Spain and Gibraltar. I hope that the Minister of State will give him a considered reply. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will also have something to say in reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice about the population explosion.
On Vietnam, the Prime Minister gave strong reasons for the Government's backing of American policy. We on this side are sure that it is right. I think that this afternoon there was a general acceptance of their policy, except on the part of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who implied that he spoke for a considerable number of hon. Members opposite who are in flat disagreement

1239
with the Government's support of the Americans in Vietnam.
The Prime Minister said that he would not deal with the origins of the conflict because these have been well explained before—notably by the Foreign Secretary—and, as we support him fully in his analysis, we must also fully support his policy in backing the Americans in South-East Asia. I was interested to hear that the leader of the Liberal Party also takes this view.
We are absolutely clear on the reasons for the American, Australian and New Zealand presence in South Vietnam. They are there to repulse a cruel assault upon an independent country which has asked for help and to hold the line of the Communist advance in South-East Asia. It is, of course, a direct British interest for two main reasons, first, because it holds a position in advance of our S.E.A.T.O. obligations and, secondly, because it protects our forces in Malaysia from having to fight on two fronts.
There must be many hon. Members present who have personal knowledge from their constituents of British forces fighting in Malaysia, as was said by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) and as I have of our own Highland Regiment. These men are our neighbours and these men we know. This is why we are so directly involved in the stability of South-East Asia and why the whole House feels personally about the search for peace.
The desire to negotiate on behalf of the South Vietnamese has been made clear on a number of occasions and by the United States over a period of months, ending in President Johnson's Baltimore declaration that he would enter discussions under any conditions. This was backed by the withdrawal of United States bombers for five days, which however drew no response from the Communist side. It is, therefore, clear that in working for a cease-fire and a settlement there cannot be a one-sided withdrawal of forces from the battle area. As U Thant said, there must be restraint on both sides.
Suppose that the United States decided to withdraw on her own. As the
1240
Australian Prime Minister, Sir Robert Menzies, said at a Press conference at Canberra on 13th July:
"Would anybody with his five wits doubt that before long Chinese Communism, acting through North Vietnamese Communism, would sweep down on South Vietnam, would put itself in a position to control Thailand would render the position of Malaya almost intolerable putting Malaya between two fires and therefore before long we would find ourselves with aggressive Communism almost on Australian shores."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet spoke in particular of the vital need that in making any moves for peace, that timing is all important, as it is indeed in all political affairs. Many of us have personal knowledge of the type of country and climate in South-East Asia and therefore understand only too well why it is that in this monsoon period the Vietcong are making such considerable gains. It is therefore unrealistic to expect them to stop now or for the South Vietnamese, with American, Australian and New Zealand support, to let them consolidate positions. The Vietcong and those backing them must first fully understand that the Americans will never give in. Equally, they must come to realise the enormous power that she has at her command.
It is against this background that the idea of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' mission must be set. In our view this valuable endeavour has been put seriously at risk by the manner in which the Prime Minister bulldozed it through the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and sought the maximum publicity for its reception in various capitals before making careful, and tactful moves to prepare the way first.
The Prime Minister always says that he does not care how many rebuffs he has as long as he achieves his object, but I respectfully suggest that, for the sake of his own country's power of influence, he should try his best to avoid them. This is even more true when it is his country which holds the immense responsibility of representing 20 nations in the search for peace. The reason why we are so deeply concerned about the Prime Minister's handling of the whole affair is that it must lessen confidence among our allies in his judgment on such delicate matters. Above all it may very well impair any future chance that the

1241
Commonwealth Mission may have to use its influence at the right time in the right way.
The Prime Minister: Does it not reflect very strongly on the 20 Commonwealth Prime Ministers to suggest that these independent countries could be bulldozed or railroaded in this way? Is the hon. Lady not aware that throughout this period 20 out of 21 Commonwealth Prime Ministers supported this Mission?
Lady Tweedsmuir: That is true. My right hon Friend the Member for Barnet quoted to the House this afternoon what the Prime Minister of Trinidad had said on exactly this point, and he said that that represented the views of several Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
The Prime Minister: He supported it.
Lady Tweedsmuir: Indeed, but he also said, and I have the quotation from The Times here, that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had not come to London to support what he called "Wilson's mission". Those are not my words. Then there were the extraordinary manoeuvres over the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, which have been referred to by several hon. Members, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe).
The Prime Minister said that he represented the Government, the North Vietnam authorities said that he was there at his own request and did not represent British Government policy. The Hanoi radio described him as:
"One of the many British personalities who protested against United States aggressive policy in Vietnam and demanded that the British Government dissociate itself from United States imperialism on the Vietnam question."
Maybe it was for that reason that the Parliamentary Secretary was only allowed to go as far as Hanoi and the Foreign Office First Secretary was not. It is indeed sad that the hon. Member's personal friend, President Ho Chi Minh, could not receive him. At least we have got somewhere as a nation. We have had Mrs. Perl, as the Scots say, first-footing. The Prime Minister has defended his curious methods of diplomacy on the grounds that we do not recognise North Vietnam. But with whatever loyalty the Parliamentary Secretary sought to explain his
1242
Government's publicly-stated position on North Vietnam, his mission was bound, from the start, to run two serious risks which could be most damaging to the search for an honourable peace.
The first was that his visit could be and was used by Hanoi for propaganda purposes, and secondly it might give the impression that the United States, Australia and New Zealand were weakened in their resolve to contain Communist subversion and attack. History is scored with tragedies due to such miscalculations. In the event, I think we were lucky that this Mission nearly failed. It could have been far worse. I agree with the Sunday paper which said:
"The Prime Minister's Liking for weird diplomacy has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished."
Let us then return to sound diplomacy backed by strength, which has carried this country through many perilous years since the last war. Even the Prime Minister himself this afternoon referred to careful timing when, in the context of Malaysia, he said that a peace move could be initiated, "As soon as there are signs that there is a willingness to talk". I do not think we shall get that now while the monsoon is in progress. I do however think that the search for a just and stable peace may take us much longer than we would like, for the world now knows that the Communists will not sue for peace except on their own conditions. That is why it is vital, in any future initiative, that the Government should not just inform but also consult the Americans on its nature and content. For it is the United States that bears the brunt of the struggle on behalf of us all.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South spoke with his great interest about the United Nations. He said that he thought that the machinery of the United Nations should be used more often for keeping peace.
Of course, while the Security Council is still in being, it is very necessary that the General Assembly should convene by agreement as soon as possible. The hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who also takes a great interest in the United Nations, made some very trenchant remarks about Ministers, and particularly about the appointment of the Minister of State for

1243
Disarmament and the Minister of State at the United Nations. He said that since they were appointed there had been a steady deterioration in both these important fields. I shall leave it to the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, or perhaps the Foreign Secretary, to reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) spoke with his great experience of the United Nations when he was in the Foreign Office, and, in particular, about the Peace-keeping Committee. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is to speak about the United Nations tomorrow. I hope that he will pay special attention to these three speeches on the United Nations. I should like to ask him, in particular, about the progress of the Peace-keeping Committee. We understand that the General Assembly will convene on 1st September, which I am sure everybody in the House welcomes. But it has also been reported that this has come about because Britain has agreed to waive Article 19, which deprives member States of their votes if they are over two years in arrears with their financial assessments.
It was reported in the Sun newspaper of the 17th of this month that Britain's compromise formula is:
"that the West does not accept that the debt, although not collectable, was not incurred."
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will deal with this matter because, if it is true, the Government cannot pretend that they have not gone back on repeated assurances given in the House that they supported Article 19. Britain accepted the ruling of the International Court of Justice that all expenses of the United Nations, including its peace-keeping operations, should be the responsibility of all members. Indeed, Lord Caradon, as Minister of State, speaking at the United Nations General Assembly in January, said this:
"it is the policy of my Government to support and strengthen the United Nations. It would indeed be a betrayal of that high purpose if we were to make our first act an abandonment of the principles of the Charter which we are all pledged to support. Most important of all, we should be betraying our obligations if we destroyed the sole sanction for the financial contributions which are essential for the continuation of all the activities of the United Nations".
1244
As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn said, the root of the financial problem is the insistence of Russia and others that peace-keeping costs were illegal because the "uniting for peace" resolution in 1950, which circumvented the Security Council veto, was in itself illegal. But it was the Soviet Union which, on 31st October, 1956, voted for the resolution referring the situation in the Middle East to the General Assembly and, on 13th July, 1960, voted for the resolution authorising the Security Council to provide the Government of the Congo with military assistance.
It was Mr. Adlai Stevenson who pointed this out with so much force. May I say from my own experience of the United Nations that I know how very much he will be missed, not just for his gifts, but for himself.
The "uniting for peace" resolution has never in fact been judiciously determined, but the Interntaional Court of Justice based the validity of the United Nations Emergency Force on Article 14. In its advisory opinion it said this:
"… it is apparent that the operations were undertaken to fulfil the prime purpose of the United Nations—that is, 'to promote and maintain a peaceful solution of the situation'. This being true, the Secretary-General properly exercised the authority given to incur financial obligations of the Organisation".
This, of course, is what Russia will not accept.
It appears from an Answer given by the Foreign Secretary to a Question on 21st June that while the Government accept that the primary responsibility for international peace rests with the Security Council
"the General Assembly also has power in this respect and the two bodies should be considered complementary and not competitive".
The Foreign Secretary said that he would put forward new proposals on this fundamental issue. He said:
"We attach great importance to evolving procedures for peacekeeping by consent"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st June, 1965; Vol. 714, c. 1186.]
The House would be interested to know exactly what else is meant by these words. Do they mean that the Government are moving towards the Russian position, that

1245
the Security Council has the only responsibility for peacekeeping operations where enforcement and coercion are concerned? Or do they mean that, while supporting the Charter, in giving prime responsibility to the Security Council they are trying to gain support for the idea that the Assembly should be able to initiate peacekeeping measures by consent, financed voluntarily by only a proportion of member States who agree with this operation? These are important matters on which, I suggest, the House of Commons would wish to express its opinion.
It is just because the United Nations reflects the realities of life, if not of power, that the only real insurance for its future is that the political conditions should be created in which the Security Council can act as a team. That was the basic assumption on which the United Nations was founded. That is why the new move by Russia to resume disarmament negotiations is of major importance because it continues the East-West dialogue. No doubt, too, it will give opportunities to ease the Soviet Union's position in relation to China.
The House must have been interested in the speech made by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne), who placed the major problem of Vietnam in the context of Soviet American relations. We welcome also the possible—we hope, probable—visit to Moscow later in the year by the Foreign Secretary, and I am sure that the House was interested to hear of the very frank discussion which seems to have taken place between my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet and the Soviet leaders. It would have been interesting to hear from the Prime Minister what is his thinking about why the Soviet Union has so suddenly asked to have the Disarmament Conference again after so long a period without it.
If the free world is to edge towards agreement with the East, it is a cardinal truth that here in Western Europe we must settle the differences between ourselves. The crisis among our friends in the European Economic Community is as great a shock to the Alliance as it is to them. Yet somehow I feel that even this crisis will be overcome, because the Community has been such an outstanding success and one cannot imagine any European union without France.
1246
Although the dispute seems to be over agriculture, it appears far more fundamental, over the nature of political control. This is the great debate, as several hon. Members have said, between those who believe in a federal structure of Europe and General de Gaulle's l'Europe des Patries. This has gone on with unabated vigour since the end of the war. It certainly raged throughout the three years when I was a member of the Council of Europe.
It is said that the Five will table compromise proposals at the next meeting of the Common Market Council of Ministers on 26th July but there will be, I am sure, a considerable period of uncertainty, because France has said that she will not attend on 26th July but might do so at the next meeting on 28th September if the compromise is acceptable. Wars of nerves take time, and they will affect the Kennedy Round and many other negotiations.
How, then, will it affect this country? My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet told us how our last negotiations for entering the Common Market were based upon an acceptance of the principles of the Treaty of Rome. The reason for our application to join then are as valid today, and it is on the same principles that we shall have to negotiate when an approach from us would be welcome. Remembering always that we shall seek to join the Community not just as it appeared from the start but as it will be in the future. For it is for the Six now to decide how they wish to fashion their own brilliant conception. If France is to stay a fully working member, the Community may evolve and grow into something rather different from the original idea.
We cannot, however, support the view, put forward in some quarters, that we should work for a United Europe without political content. We must recognise that true European unity involves major economic, political and strategic decisions, and in many ways it is the most compelling reason for joining the Common Market. For it is, surely, a prime British interest to share in shaping Europe.
I believe there is a rising tide of public opinion in this country which believes this to be true, and I believe also that

1247
the Prime Minister recognises this and is trying his very best to skirt round the rather more rigid conditions which governed his Labour Party's approach to Europe. But it is a powerful tide of public opinion which we on this side of the House feel will before long sweep away the Labour Party, surcharge and all.
There is one thing in this debate which reflects real anxiety, and that is that the close grouping of six nations on the Continent will create permanent divisions in Europe. Six is not a magic number. Indeed, to limit the E.E.C. to six would limit the power of its growth and influence. If Britain and the E.F.T.A. countries contributed to its strength we should have a union of over 250 million people able to give real trading and capital opportunities for the Commonwealth, and, may be, able also, in time, to attract Eastern European States.
Many people seem to think that when General de Gaulle is gathered to his fathers all with change. But will it? I expect hon. Members will have seen the very interesting report on American. French and European relations given by the Republican Party to the United States House of Representatives, a report by a European fact-finding mission. It said this:
"General de Gaulle's policies are not apt to disappear from the world when he leaves office. He rides powerful currents of opinion which flow throughout Western Europe."
The report then goes on to argue that the United States must now recognise that the European nations have rebuilt their economies after the war and now want to fulfil their rôles in the world of politics, and in science and technology which they have done so much to advance. It follows that the structure of the Alliance must shift
"from the leader-follower basis, almost inevitable in 1949, to that of true partnership"
This will involve difficult defence, political and economic decisions, if any reality is to be given to the transition from dependence to inter-dependence.
I submit, therefore, finally to the House that in Europe there are two central ideas which we should follow. Firstly, we must ensure that no single nation dominates the centre of Europe. Secondly, that, whatever greater respon-
1248
sibilities Europeans may bear, we must collectively remain true to the Atlantic Alliance. This is a prime British interest. It is also that of Europe, and of the free world.
9.30 p.m.
The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley): The rôle of those who wind up on the first day of a two-day debate is a rather strange one. It was a former Foreign Secretary of the party opposite, who, when I was a very young Member of Parliament, told me that the only safe rule was to refer to no one who had spoken, and to none of the subjects that had been touched upon. I shall not be able to be a perfect pupil of Lord Butler, but the problem to which the Prime Minister referred in opening the debate remains, and that is that the Ministers who speak have to have a division of labour. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will deal at considerable length with the points that have been raised on Vietnam, Europe, and the United Nations, when he speaks tomorrow, but I should like to comment on a few points raised by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir).
First, if it is right to discuss Europe on party lines in this House, am I not entitled to ask why there was no reference to Europe and to joining the Six in the programme put before the British people by the party opposite less than 12 months ago? May I also, as one who was a minority in his own party, a minority in this House, and a minority in the T.U.C., and who advocated that Britain should be a founder-member of the Coal and Steel Community, say that Britain's relationship with Europe in the past, in the present, and in the future, is far too serious a subject to be debated in a party spirit, with the scoring of party points. I am glad that today the Prime Minister and the principal Foreign Affairs spokesman of the Conservative Party, in company with the Leader of the Liberal Party, united in saying that we wish unanimously that the Six can compose their differences, and that the great and magnificent concept which the European Community respresents can go forward.
I think that it would be wrong to spend any more time in this winding-up

1249
speech in dealing with the points that have been made on that issue. As has been made clear, we on this side of the House stand for a Common Market embracing the Six, Britain, and any other countries which wish to join. We are in favour of Britain participating from the beginning in any discussions on political unity in Europe, and we have made far-reaching proposals on defence which are of importance to Europe as well as to the Atlantic Alliance.
I was rather surprised that both the right hon. Member for Barnet and the noble Lady sought to make detailed party scoring points with regard to the Commonwealth Mission, and with regard to the visit to Hanoi of my hon. Friend he Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). Surely it is well known that both these initiatives to substitute the conference table for the battlefield had the support of a virtually united Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference, and of the United States of America? It seems wrong that this foreign affairs debate should be used in any party spirit whatever when such great issues as preservation of peace in the world, and preservation of liberty in the world, are at stake.
I now turn to some aspects of the problem of disarmament. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister outlined our positive programme for disarmament which will, we hope, be forwarded by discussions at the 18-nation Geneva Conference which is at last to be re-convened.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party—and with most of his speech I found myself in agreement—echoed the criticisms in The Guardian that Britain and the West were at fault in declining the Russian proposal to reconvene the Geneva Disarmament Conference on 20th July and proposing that it should start work a week later. It is entirely wrong to suppose that this proposal was due to any unreadiness for disarmament discussions in the West. We and our allies have been pressing the Russians for several months to go back to Geneva. I joined with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in pressing Mr. Gromyko on this point when he visited Britain in March, and we have been in constant touch with the Russians about proposals that we hope to put forward there.
1250
The Russians, when they agreed, left only a week for bringing the meeting together. Administratively speaking, this seemed a deadline impossible of achievement by the secretariat or the Governments represented at the conference. We are anxious to resume as soon as may be, and we are perfectly ready to do so.
With regard to Central Europe, to which repeated reference has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House and which, in a slightly different context, was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), I would say that the Government are in favour of any measures which would genuinely lead to a reduction of present tensions, and Central Europe is of great importance in this respect: it is the region in which the political differences between East and West are most acute and where the military confrontation between the two blocs is most immediate and massive. For these reasons Central Europe, of all regions, is one in which disarmament problems must be approached with caution as well as zeal.
In his Press conferences in Berlin and Bonn in March the Prime Minister mentioned four main conditions for arms control in Europe. These conditions have frequently been restated by other Foreign Office Ministers and myself in this House. They are, first, that we must act only in concert with our allies; secondly, that the existing balance of strength must not be upset; thirdly, that there must be impartial international inspection and verification; and, fourthly, that it would not be enough to consider only the armaments and forces within the actual zone of military confrontation in Europe: forces stationed outside the zone and, in particular, missiles targeted on to it from outside must also be taken into consideration.
We believe—and there is full agreement in N.A.T.O. on this—that there is a direct relationship between the political difficulties of Europe and the military tension on the Continent, and that proposals to ease one would be of little or no value unless they were accompanied by parallel proposals to solve the other. Proposals for military "disengagement", nuclear freeze, and disarmament must be linked with measures leading to a solution of the political problems of the

1251
area and, in particular, the division of Germany. A lasting détente in Europe can be achieved only by the re-unification of Germany on the basis of free democratic elections.
A conference on European security, to which my hon. Friend referred, would not help to bring about progress unless it were well prepared and the measures necessary to solve the political as well as the military problems of the Continent were discussed. Unfortunately, there is as yet no sign of any readiness on the part of the Warsaw Pact countries to enter into serious and constructive negotiations on this complex problem.
In spite of the difficulties that exist, we believe that a very useful first step—and a feasible one—towards a European security system would be the establishment of a system of observation posts in the N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact areas to guard against surprise attack and war by accident or miscalculation.
We regret, therefore, that, up to now, the Russians have rejected such proposals by linking them to measures for de-nuclearisation and reduction of conventional forces in Europe, which they know to be unacceptable to the West. We shall continue to strive for measures of agreement in European arms control, but we should recognise that, in the immediate future, progress is more likely to be made on proposals of a worldwide nature. The observation post proposal would, of course, cover not merely central Europe but the whole of the N.A.T.O. and Warsaw Pact areas. In addition, we are pressing for the conclusion of a non-dissemination treaty and a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and we are emphasising the importance of beginning to reduce the numbers of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles in the hands of the nuclear Powers.
These world-wide measures would, of course, embrace the European countries and, if put into effect, would contribute also to European security. Since they do not single out Europe for any special treatment, they avoid some of the political difficulties associated with purely European measures. Real progress and mutual understanding at the coming eighteen-nation disarmament conference at Geneva could help to create
1252
the conditions for solving the political problems and military tensions of Central Europe.
It would be wrong to debate world affairs without making special reference to our friends in Gibraltar. I am glad, in that respect, that the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) raised this issue, even if I disagree with some of the charges which he levelled at the Government Front Bench. As the House knows—
Mr. Peter Thomas: Before the Minister of State leaves disarmament, could he say something more about the proposed non-dissemination treaty? I gathered from what the Prime Minister said that discussions are still going on with our allies and that, therefore, it is not certain that this treaty will be laid before the disarmament conference when it resumes on the 27th.
Mr. Padley: We attach the utmost importance to a non-dissemination treaty. It is true that this is being discussed. Before this debate concludes, a further statement may be made by a Government spokesman—
Mr. William Yates: Could the hon. Member say something about the Warsaw Pact, which is very important?
Mr. Padley: I am afraid that there are many topics to deal with and, therefore, I am sorry that I cannot give way to the hon. Member.
As the House knows, during the next few days, we shall have the pleasure of discussions with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and with his deputy. Throughout the last nine months, we have made persistent efforts to secure the restoration of normal conditions on the frontier, but these efforts have, so far, proved unsuccessful. There has been no indication from the Spanish Government that they are willing to make it possible for us to meet them round the table to discuss our differences over Gibraltar. They have, in effect, done no more than invite us—in their note of 10th February this year—to negotiate under duress. This, as we have made quite clear, we are not prepared to do.
I think that we have shown great patience and restraint in this matter. We

1253
have made it clear that we have no desire to quarrel with Spain and that we seek an honourable solution to the present trouble. Hon. Members have suggested that we have shown too much patience and restraint by concentrating our attentions on positive measures to strengthen the economy of Gibraltar and make it more self-sufficient, rather than on other measures to bring the Spanish Government to reason.
I must say that I find it odd that hon. Members opposite can still talk about frigates and, at the same time, advocate drastic economic sanctions against Spain. Hon. Members opposite must make up their minds which of these two lines they support. I make that point with great reluctance, because, as hon. Gentlemen—[Interruption.] Yes. My words on this issue since last November are on record and, the whole time, I have sought, in every debate in which I have spoken on Gibraltar, to take it quite out of the realms of public controversy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I am asked why—for the very simple reason that if one studies the history of the Gibraltar dispute, going back for over 10 years, one will find that any attempt to score debating points by one side or the other since the original imposition of sanctions at the time of the visit by Her Majesty the Queen are quite beside the point. This is one of the issues of foreign policy on which there ought to be complete unity.
I explained the steps which are being taken on the economic side to strengthen the Gibraltar economy in some detail when I spoke in the debate on 18th June. I feel sure that the success of these measures and those which are now being put in hand, which inevitably take time to come fully into effect, and the fortitude of the whole people of Gibraltar in face of the present Spanish policy will bring home to the Spanish authorities the fact that obstruction and harassment will not force us into negotiations under duress and will never intimidate Gibraltar.
To those hon. Members who have asked for less talk and more action I would say that the steps being taken to strengthen Gibraltar's economy do amount to forthright and worthwhile action. On 15th April my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies told the House that Her Majesty's Govern-
1254
ment, when requested by the Government of Gibraltar, would be glad to give assistance. Requests so far received from Gibraltar and processed have been met. We will certainly give urgent and sympathetic consideration to any reasonable requests which may be made in the future, but we do not propose to direct the readjustment of Gibraltar's economy from London without respecting local responsibility in this matter.
As I informed the House in answer to a Question on 8th July, we are keeping under review all types of action which might appropriately be taken to defend and sustain the people of Gibraltar. The situation at the frontier has not materially altered since March and, bad as that situation is, I do not consider that the adoption of a policy of obstruction and harassment or of a policy of retaliation in other fields would at present—at present—be the appropriate way to help the people of Gibraltar. The adoption of such a policy would have implications which might be very far-reaching and would also be likely to lead the people of Gibraltar themselves into further difficulties. This, I am convinced, would be in no one's interests in present circumstances.
Attention has been drawn to the apparent contrast of the success of French diplomacy in securing favourable treatment for French subjects at the frontier and the failure of our diplomacy to secure similar treatment for British subjects. Many French subjects return home at this time of the year from North Africa via Spain and numbers of them pass through Gibraltar. The fact that these French people were for a few days subject to the Spanish campaign of obstruction at the frontier certainly shows the inflexibility and lack of sensitivity of the Spanish authorities concerned. Exceptions later made for transit passengers of all nationalities, including French, coming from Tangier via the Gibraltar ferry into Spain, seem to me to be an obvious move by Spain to avoid antagonising those countries which are not directly involved in the present difficulties. The Spanish information services have over the past nine months assiduously attempted to win over France and other countries to their point of view. The position of the French Government in this matter is in no way similar to ours

1255
and any attempt to compare the alleged success in securing better treatment for transit passengers whom the Spaniards clearly do not wish to annoy with our efforts seems to me quite meaningless.
Nevertheless, the passage without any difficulty of these foreign cars through the frontier post at La Linea during the past week or more has shown up in all its absurdity the contention that what has been done at the frontier since October is only the introduction of a normal régime in place of the allegedly abnormal one which existed hitherto.
Since October cars have usually been passed through the frontier at the rate of one an hour. The foreign cars in transit have recently gone through at the rate of more than one a minute. So much too for the Spanish argument that the restrictions are necesssary for the control of smuggling.
We intend, for the present, to continue to concentrate on the positive steps which can be taken to make Gibraltar more self-sufficient. These are already beginning to have effect and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be giving further thought to these matters in the talks which we shall be having with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and his deputy in the next two days. The visit of Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Isola, who arrived in London today, will be particularly helpful in this context and will also help to keep us informed of the strong feelings of the people of Gibraltar, which we ourselves fully share, that the Spanish campaign against them should be brought to an end. It will continue to be our aim to achieve this and we will go on working for it—to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Preston, North (Mr. J. Amery)—with patience and firmness.
In the past year our economic problems have increasingly focussed the attention of the House on a truth which Ernest Bevin always emphasised and which I was glad to hear the Leader of the Liberal Party emphasise earlier—that a country's influence in foreign affairs depends on its economic strength. I propose, there-force, to say something about the commercial work of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service and recent developments about which much more should be known.
1256
I am glad that in recent times there have been questions and discussions in the House on this essential feature of British foreign policy. Part of this work is, of course, to deal with economic questions which may arise between Her Majesty's Government and individual Governments abroad. Each of our missions also has to report on economic, financial and commercial developments in the course of its general reporting to Her Majesty's Government on the country in which it is stationed. The main commercial and economic task of the Diplomatic Service is export promotion.
It is not the job of our embassies and high commissions to sell our exports. Only the exporter himself can do that. But missions abroad do create conditions in which British exporters are able to exploit overseas markets. They especially aim to provide specific information about specific opportunities for individual British exporters, at a practical down-to-earth level. Calls for tender and other openings for British goods are urgently reported. A large number of market research reports are produced to give exporters an initial idea of the prospects for opening or expanding markets in different territories.
As a matter of general routine, missions also send back to the Board of Trade information on all changes in local tariffs and regulations and any other general developments of interest to British exporters. This information is then available to exporters through the export services of the Board of Trade, which thus has available a large amount of up-to-date information about overseas markets provided by missions. It uses this to answer inquiries from British firms, but many inquiries still need to be referred to the officers on the spot who, in addition, receive numerous requests for information and assistance direct from firms. In answering such requests, missions provide information about the market for particular products, help to find local agents and publicise British products.
Mrs. Anne Kerr: Would my hon. Friend agree that there is a slight incompatibility about the appointment of a super arms salesman with the appointment also of the Minister for Disarmament? It occurs to some of us that there is.
Mr. Padley: In the view of the Government, there is no contradiction whatsoever. The super arms salesman, we hope, is a temporary appointment for the stage of human history during which there are wars and rumours of wars, and Britain needs alliances in that period. The super arms salesman will do the kind of job I am talking about—the job of promoting British exports, solving the problem of the balance of payments, making Britain stronger, and making Britain able to exert a greater influence for peace in the world. On the other hand, the success of my noble Friend the Minister for Disarmament will render superfluous the services of the super arms salesman, and the sooner this happens the better.
Our Missions abroad, including those who have attaches who are responsible for selling arms to our allies, always hope that British business men visiting their territory will call on them. I share this hope. While many British exporters have the closest possible contacts with their customers abroad, the officers in our missions can often help, particularly when an exporter is breaking new ground. They can give the latest information on local conditions, and, from the head of mission downwards, provide introductions to leading industrialists or importers, to chambers of commerce, and to Ministers or officials concerned with commercial matters, or—increasingly important these days—with Government purchasing.
In countries where imports are in the hands of State trading corporations, the mission's knowledge of investment plans and import requirements can be of the highest possible value to our exporters. When a British firm sends out a negotiating team to clinch a contract, the mission in the country concerned will offer its support for the duration of the visit, and carry out appropriate follow-up work after the team has departed.
1258
Already, the services offered to business men by the Diplomatic Service, particularly in the form in which they are now being strengthened, are, I believe, more comprehensive than those of the Governments of our chief competitors. The abiding truth is that Britain's capacity to play a full part in world affairs depends on her economic strength. This is so both in military defence and in the world war on want, which must succeed if humanity is to live in peace.
Mr. George Lawson (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. William Yates: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which may have interest among back benchers on both sides, would it be correct to say that this is the first two-day foreign affairs debate in which on the first day there have been winding-up speeches from the Front Bench of the Opposition and from the Government Front Bench, and that this is not normal—without any reflection on the Chair—the fact being that we normally proceed with back-bench speeches and have winding-up speeches on the second day? Is this the first time that this has occurred?
Mr. Speaker: Most certainly not. I always share the hon. Gentleman's regrets on every topic, but I can lend him no support on this.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Public Works Loans Bill be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  10.0 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a short routine Bill which will I hope be uncontroversial. It serves two purposes. The first is to provide funds for lending by the Public Works Loan Commissioners to local authorities in Great Britain. The second is to provide a useful simplification in the procedure for securing loans advanced by the Commissioners.
  There is, of course, nothing new about the first purpose. As the House knows, it is customary to present Bills at fairly frequent intervals so that Parliament can be kept informed and have an opportunity to review the extent of Exchequer lending to local authorities. The present review has come a bit earlier than usual. For one thing we have tried to help local authorities by allowing all of them to get the first £100,000 instead of the first £50,000 of their borrowing requirements from the Board. This enables more smaller authorities to raise all the finance they need without recourse to the market.
  I think it is also fair to say that there must have been some under-estimation of the amounts to which authorities would be entitled when the new arrangements were introduced by the previous administration. I do not seek to blame them for that; those arrangements only came into operation just over a year ago and it is undoubtedly difficult to say with any precision just what will be the demand on the Board in any period. Much depends on the pattern of local authorities' borrowing, on the amounts of maturing debt they have to refinance and on the timing of their applications to the Board. Last time Parliament provided £650 million, and, although that provision is not completely exhausted, it is obviously impossible to run right up to the limit before seeking replenishment. On this occasion we are asking Parliament to provide £500 million, which should be
  1260
  enough to meet the entitlement of local authorities until well into next year. By that time the system of partial access to the Board will have been in force for some two years, and we thought that Parliament might then wish to take stock of the situation again. We shall, I hope, have settled most of the teething troubles which have arisen.
  I am not suggesting that there are really any fundamental weaknesses in the system, but I think it is fair to say that neither the Government nor the local authorities are wholly satisfied with the arrangements as they now exist. There are undoubtedly certain strains and stresses inherent in those arrangements, and we shall continue to explore ways and means of removing them whilst reconciling the national and local interests. The House will, of course, appreciate that we are not concerned today with the level of local authority expenditure but only with the method of financing it, or, rather, financing a part of it. Perhaps at this point I can remind the House how the existing arrangements work. At present, only the smaller authorities can get all the money they need for their capital programmes from the Board. Larger authorities are limited to 30 per cent. of their long-term borrowing or £100,000, where that is greater. They are expected to find the rest of their money on the market.
  In his Budget speech my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that as a special measure of assistance to local authorities in the less properous areas, or indeed in entire regions, he proposed to give them up to 50 per cent. access to the P.W.L.B. I can now say that it has been decided to allow local authorities in Scotland, Wales and the northern and north-west regions of England to get 40 per cent. instead of 30 per cent. of their long-term borrowing from the P.W.L.B. this year. We came to the conclusion that, rather than give a few authorities 50 per cent., it would be better to widen the area to which the concession applies and give authorities in these four whole regions the extra entitlement.
  I turn now to Clause 2. As I have said, we do not regard the present arrangements as static, and there is one change in the mechanics which we can make immediately. At present loans by the Board

  1261
  are secured by mortgage, normally of the borrower's revenues. The need for a mortgage deed to be executed involves time and labour for both the Board and the borrower, in correspondence, in sending the appropriate form and in the sealing of the mortgage deed, all of which has to be done before the money can be handed over.
  The new procedure proposed in the Bill will provide a more streamlined system. Loans secured on the revenues of the borrower will be made by virtue of a simple agreement between the Board and the authority, and, when the money is handed over, the loan will be automatically secured on the authority's revenues, without a mortgage deed having to be executed. This new, simpler procedure will, I am sure, be warmly welcomed by local authorities.
  Clause 3 provides a convenient procedure for the recovery of stamp duty in respect of these loans.
  That is all I wish to say on the Bill itself. But, before sitting down, I should like to take the opportunity of paying a tribute to the Public Works Loan Commissioners. Theirs is not an easy task and it has been particularly strenuous during the last year or so, with the introduction of the new arrangements to which I have referred. The Government are indebted to them for the services they render on an entirely voluntary basis.
  10.7 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Walker: First, I join the Financial Secretary in paying tribute to the Public Works Loan Commissioners for the work which they do. I think that both sides of the House are appreciative of the manner in which they have conducted their affairs over the years.
  This is a very important Bill in that it involves a very large sum of money. If we agree to the Bill, we are deciding that every family of four in the country will loan about £40 to the local authorities over the next 12 months or so. This is a very substantial sum. One gathers that at present local authorities are borrowing about £500 for every family of four in the country. At least, that is the figure that one obtains from the latest statistics available.
  I would say immediately that I was rather disappointed that in his remarks
  1262
  in moving the Second Reading the Financial Secretary did not provide us with a great deal more information about the current state of local authority borrowing. This is a very important subject. It has important effects upon the economy as a whole. It is one of the most important spheres of public expenditure and also one of the biggest spheres of total investment. It is difficult to find the latest available information about the magnitude of the problems involved. I hope that whoever replies to the debate will be able to give us some further information about the trend in local authority borrowing between the passing of the last Public Works Loans Bill and the presentation of this one.
  It was interesting to note the considerable contrast between the general tone of the Financial Secretary and the tone of his hon. Friends who spoke in the debate when the Conservative Government introduced the last Bill. For instance, the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) was present during that debate, and he will know that all sorts of imaginative suggestions were made by Labour Members about what should have been contained in that Bill. Consequently, when the Financial Secretary said that the Bill was a very simple one and in line with all previous Bills, I should have thought that there must have been a certain air of disappointment among hon. Gentlemen opposite who joined in the debates on the subject in 1963.
  Turning to the Bill, we welcome the improvements in procedure contained in Clauses 2 and 3 and wish to ask certain fundamental questions about Clause 1. There is no doubt that, during the past six months, the local authorities have had some considerable difficulties and considerable expenditure in borrowing in the market and we would like to know how much the Government have taken into account such difficulties.
  First, the general taxation policy of the Government has had its effects upon the needs and requirements of local authorities in borrowing. We are well aware that many items of Government policy have considerably increased local authority expenditure and the cost of their long-term investments. Taxes such as the vehicle licence duty and the petrol tax

  1263
  obviously add to local authority's immediate expenditure as well as to the cost of major development projects. The 7 per cent. Bank Rate, which was held at that level for longer than any period since the war and is still at the high rate of 6 per cent., has added considerably to the cost of borrowing by local authorities and there were periods in the past six months when they were paying sums far in excess of 7 per cent. I am surprised that we have no information as to the type of extra expenditure involved to local authorities as a result of Government policy.
  Then, of course, local authority expenditure must be affected by the rise of nearly 5 per cent. that has taken place in the general cost of living index since the Government came to power. Added to these factors of the petrol tax, the increased vehicle licence duty, the 7 per cent. Bank Rate and the general inflation that has taken place there are other aspects of Government policy which presumably will result in considerably heavier burdens upon the local authorities.
  For example, there is the declared policy as to comprehensive schools. If these are to be built fully and quickly it will presumably involve considerable extra expenditure on school building and this will involve, in turn, increased borrowings by the local authorities. There is also the effect of the Government's housing policy. It appears to be the declared policy to lay greater emphasis upon local authority building than on private building and this, too, will result in increased demand for borrowing by local authorities.
  Yet we have had no estimate by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to the extent that this will affect future requirements of local authorities in borrowings. It is time that the public were given some estimate of what this will demand in terms of increased expenditure by local authorities. I hope that we shall have some further information about the amounts expected to be involved and the increase, if any, in the general rate of lending to local authorities under the Bill.
  There are other aspects on which we would like a clear declaration of Government policy. The hon. and learned
  1264
  Member did not mention what the Government consider is to be future policy on interest rates. Many imaginative suggestions by hon. Members opposite were put forward on the last occasion we debated the subject. It was handled for the then Opposition by the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He, in his usual vigorous manner, expressed his disappointment at the lack of new ideas and of real assistance to the local authorities contained in the Public Works Loans Act, 1964, which was almost identical to this Bill. He said:
  "I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is here, because on 3rd December he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
  'reconsider reintroducing the 3 per cent. maximum rate which applied under the Labour Government.'
  The right hon. Gentleman said:
  'No, Sir, Our assistance to local authorities is very large and is growing. We think that the right way to subsidise local authorities is in this more open way rather than by providing pig subsidies in the form of artificial rates of interest.'"—
  —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 483.]
  Doubtless, at that time, the hon. Member for Salford, East was disappointed by the Chancellor's reply and he was certainly encouraged in that disappointment by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who went on to say that there was justification for having lower rates of interest for the local authorities under that Act. We know that, since the Government have been in power, the loans under the Public Works Loans Acts have, in the Board's capacity as lender of last resort, been at the highest level ever. I was surprised therefore that, the Opposition, having made quite clear, when the last Public Works Loans Bill was debated, that they were in favour of low rates of interest—and the magic 3 per cent. with which this Government is so associated was actually mentioned in that debate—there was no concession or statement from the Financial Secretary about their intentions in the matter of interest rates.
  There is another problem facing local authorities. The Financial Secretary has rightly pointed out that besides obtaining the assistance which they do from the Public Works Loans Acts local authorities are still dependent for a very large

  1265
  proportion of their borrowings upon the market. In considering how much we should provide under these Acts we should surely consider the difficulties experienced by local authorities in borrowing from the market at any particular moment of time. The actions of this Government have made borrowings from the market more difficult and much more expensive. We are in the process of passing the Finance Bill and we know that that Bill will result in considerable demands in the market on the issue of debenture stocks.
  The rush has already started as a result of the operation of the Corporation Tax. The rate of interest of these debenture stocks is very high and they are very attractive stocks for anybody requiring a fixed rate of interest. Therefore, we must ask what local authorities will have to pay to compete in the market with these stocks and how much this will cost the local authorities and therefore the ratepayers. Do the Government intend to see that the processes of the Public Works Loans Act will be used to enable local authorities to stave off the increased rate for borrowing which the Government's own Finance Bill has created? I was disappointed that the Financial Secretary, who took such a part in steering the Bill through, should not have made some reflections on the effect of the Bill on local authority borrowings.
  The Government have decided to continue on the general principles and lines previously stated. This will cause a certain amount of depression among local authorities, because whereas this was reasonable when they could conveniently and competitively obtain borrowings from the market it is a different question when the cost of these borrowings has been increased by the Government's financial policy. On the last occasion when we debated a Public Works Loans Bill there was a great deal of questioning by the then Opposition, now the present Government, about the nature of local authority financing. Questions were asked about the amount of local authority borrowing which came from abroad.
  Has the Financial Secretary any further information and detail about the present short-term borrowings of local authorities? The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that the last Bill was introduced on the basis of a White Paper just previously published in which it was
  1266
  considered necessary to reduce the proportion of the borrowings of local authorities borrowed on the short-term market and it was laid down that it was the Government's intention to reduce the amount borrowed on the short-term market to 20 per cent. of borrowings.
  How far are we going towards reducing it to that level, or has the position been in the last few months that rather than short-term borrowings having decreased they have started to increase again? If so, to what extent? These are important and fundamental facts which the House should know. I remember in the last debate the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), now Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster, in col. 481 of HANSARD talking of those short-term borrowings by the local authorities. He said:
  "A good deal of this is hot money admittedly. When the Government, as part of their financial measures, put the Bank rate up to 7 per cent. and local authorities had then to pay 6¾ per cent. on their temporary loans hot money came in from abroad, attracted by the higher rates of interest. The Government were buying support for sterling and making the local authorities foot the bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 481.]
  The Government made the local authorities pay because that was the only borrowing which they could undertake to satisfy their needs.
  We must, therefore, ask the Government to what extent they have had a 7 per cent. Bank rate, has this hot money been coming in from abroad to support sterling and what it has cost the local authorities, and what proportion of the total amount of short-term borrowings have come from abroad? These are fundamental facts which I think the whole House will want to know in order to see the very nature of the capital markets financing our local authorities. I believe that the extent of local government expenditure on borrowing must be of some concern to us all. At the present time the Government are facing problems of inflation, and the nature and extent of local authority expenditure must be of fundamental importance to them and to the economy. It is a colossal sphere of expenditure, and the extent of borrowing has now reached a level where every family in the country is lending to the local authorities something like £500 on average. Tonight we

  1267
  are increasing it by a further £40 for every family.
  We must know what the general view of the Government is as to the development over the next two or three years in this sphere, and what measures they intend to introduce to see that this borrowing is spent wisely and in the interests of the economy at large. We must also know to what extent their financial policies are going to increase the rate burden in the country. I think it is a disappointment to the electorate who were promised rate reform, local authority financing reform, and house purchase reform, that the Government are pursuing a completely similar course to what has gone in the past, having put up the cost somewhat considerably.
  I would like to say a word about the effect upon general provision for housing. This was another matter that formed a very large part of the debate in 1963. The hon. Gentleman who is now a present Member of the Government, the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Reynolds), made a very powerful speech on the last Public Works Loan Bill and he ended his speech by what he emphasised was a matter of considerable importance, namely, the financing of house purchase through the local authorities. He made the suggestion that under the Public Works Loans Board they should be willing to grant seemingly unlimited sums under the various Acts that would enable local authorities to finance house purchase. He said in column 496 of HANSARD:
  "I believe that it would be possible without undue strain on the Exchequer, to allow local authorities, in addition to the 20 per cent. they will be allowed to take up—if they so desire—from the Board next year, to allow them to take as much as they need for assisting owner-occupation. This would be a demonstration of genuine interest by the Government in owner-occupation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1963; Vol. 686, c. 496.]
  I notice under this Bill that there is no provision for providing these unlimited sums to local authorities for lending to people for owner-occupation. May we seek from the Financial Secretary information as to whether the Government have decided to reject the suggestions that their own supporters made the last time this was debated, or whether this is a matter which will now possibly come
  1268
  under the present Public Works Loans Bill? This is an important Measure that we are passing. We believe that the Government are continuing a method of financing very similar to what we outlined in the previous Bill. We welcome an increase of £100,000 limit for the smaller authorities. Indeed, we outlined this ourselves when we introduced the last Public Works Loans Bill. The White Paper accompanying it stated:
  "It is thought that at least two-thirds of all authorities will benefit from this arrangement in that £50,000 will represent more than 20 pet cent. of their needs in that year. It may be possible subsequently to raise this sum to £100,000."
  We are pleased that the Government have raised it to £100,000. We welcome the administrative provisions in the Bill, but we seek far more information from the Government about their general long-term intentions.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) has no right to criticise, for two reasons. The first is that for 13 years his party, while in power, did not introduce cheap interest rates. Indeed, the Conservative Government's interest rate was roughly 6 per cent.—exactly double the highest rate operating from 1945 to 1951.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: The Conservative Party did not make promises. That is the difference.
  Mr. Allaun: I am coming to that.
  The second reason why the hon. Member for Worcester has no right to criticise is that the high Bank Rate from which we are now suffering—and people in council houses and would-be owner-occupiers are suffering—is largely due to the deficit which the Government have inherited. Having said that, I want to criticise—and I think that I, together with many other hon. Members on the Labour side, are entitled to criticise. While £550 million is a lot of money, the question which we have to ask is: at what rate of interest will this be lent? The answer, very simply, is the market rate of interest. This will make very little difference to most councils, I regret to say.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Except for the quota.
  Mr. Allaun: Yes, except for the quota. This is possibly ½ per cent. in many cases. Unless this interest rate is drastically reduced, council tenants, would-be council tenants and would-be owner-occupiers are in a very difficult situation.
  The effect of the present bank rate and the rates which councils have to pay for the money with which they build council houses is this. Very roughly, the cost of a £3,000 council house by the time that the market rate of interest has been paid for the normal period of 60 years, is over £10,000. That means that £7,000 goes in interest to the financiers. All this talk about building operatives' wages causing the cost of houses to go up is twaddle. It is the moneylenders who are getting the bunce. So far we have not made much impact in reducing the toll of the moneylender.
  Roughly two-thirds of the rent of a council house goes to pay interest on the capital. Rents are now rising to such a level that poor people who need council houses most would in many cases be unable to pay the rents required if the councils did not spread the cost of the new council houses over their old council houses. The result is that people who have been paying rent on a council house for 20 to 30 years are finding that their rents are going up every year, although there is no change in their housing situation.
  Let me quote some figures. The housing deficit in the council accounts of some of our big cities is appalling—Salford, £150,000; Manchester, £600,000; Liverpool, £1¼ million. These councils are in an impossible position. They can either raise the rents yet again—and they have been raising them almost annually—or stop building. I am glad that most councils realise that it would be criminal to stop building in view of the tragic housing shortage. Consequently, they are continuing to build.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) reminds me—I happen to live in his city, so I know—that in Manchester the council is having to impose a further rent increase of a minimum of 7s. 6d. a week rising to 12s. 9d. a week. All over the country, councils are faced with this dilemma. The same situation of a growing interest burden faces the owner-occupier. Any attempts by
  1270
  reactionary quarters to drive a wedge between the owner-occupier and the council tenant must be resisted, because they both face the same burden of high interest rates.
  The solution was given in the Labour Party election manifesto of cheap interest rates both for the council tenant and for those wishing to buy their own houses. I should like to give an example of what West Germany does in this respect. In West Germany, the market rate of interest is even higher than in Britain, but the Government provides the first portion of the loan for building one's own house, either completely interest-free or at a rate of one-half of 1 per cent. That is a very good idea which, I hope, possibly our Government will consider.
  That means that anyone who wants to build, say, a mansion costing £15,000 will not get a cheap interest rate for the whole figure, but if, for example, the first £2,000 is interest-free, the man who builds a small house will be helped much more proportionately than the man who buys a mansion. That is something which, I hope, we will take into consideration.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My hon. Friend is discussing an important matter. I noticed that some hon. Members opposite greeted with incredulity his point about differentially lower interest rates being the rule in other countries. My hon. Friend will, perhaps, agree that this is an established practice also in the United States. Money which is lent for housing is lent at differentially lower interest rates. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a practice which is widespread throughout the world.
  Mr. Allaun: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for his intervention. That is done not only in America, but in many countries.
  I am sure that the Labour Government intend to carry out their promise. That is the solution, but there has been delay. First, we were given an indication that it would be done in the Budget, but it did not come in the Budget. Then there was a suggestion that it would come in July, but it did not come in July. Now, we are told that it will come in September. I am asking that it does come in September, because this is very

  1271
  necessary if we are to tackle the housing problem.
  To do this would not cost fabulous sums. Last November, I put a Question to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and asked him how much it would cost to reduce from the current rate to 3 per cent. the interest on the council house-building programme of the previous year. His answer was £9 million per annum. I admit that if, in the following year, it was necessary to subsidise to the same extent, and assuming that Bank Rate had not gone down, there would be a further £9 million that year or, in other words, a total of £18 million, and £27 million the year after. Even if it were £9 million, £18 million and £27 million, however, what is this compared with the expenditure by the Government of £7,000 million a year? These are trifling sums, and yet they could do more than anything else to solve the terrible housing problem which afflicts our people, particular in the great industrial cities of the north, and the city of London.
  I plead with the Government, for God's sake give us these lower interest rates quickly, before building begins to slow down.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: We have heard some passionate stuff—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—passionate stuff from the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). I think his financial suggestions could be summed up rather like this. If we are short of money, just print some more. If one cares to examine minutely what the hon. Member has just suggested, it amounts to that—just turn on the printing press and print some more.
  I should like to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) in asking the Government to tell us a little about what is going to happen to all this money we are asked to vote by means of this Bill tonight. We have heard a lot about the terrible burdens under which local authorities labour. Of course, the reason why they labour under the burdens of interest rates is that they undertake a great deal of expensive activity of one kind and another, much of it most necessary, but some of it, perhaps, not so necessary, and I think
  1272
  we are entitled to know a little bit about the sort of obligations which the Government have placed upon local authorities, as a result, of which, no doubt, we are asked to vote this money this evening.
  My hon. Friend briefly referred to the subject of education. I also would refer, very briefly, to that subject, because it is one of the reasons why local authorities are being asked to find more and more money and why we are being asked for this sum this evening. Yet we have a policy, being pursued by Government planning all over the country, by which, next September there will be empty places in schools. Because of doctrinaire political decisions a maintained grammar school in my constituency will have 30 empty desks next September because the local authority is bound by this doctrinaire policy to kill off that school by degrees. I should be out of order, I am sure, if I were to pursue that matter at great length or any great detail, but that is the sort of thing which is happening. As a result of the Government's policies local authorities are doing these things, and yet we are asked to vote more money this evening so that they can pursue these nefarious schemes.
  I hasten to say that if we give this Bill a Second Reading tonight we shall certainly want to have a close look at it during its later stages. I should like to know from the Government a little about the financial disciplines which are to be placed on local authorities if this large sum of money is to be voted. We have heard suggestions that we should provide cheap money for local authorities and give them greater freedom in all their various projects. Well, if that were pursued to any great length we could get the most extraordinary imbalance in a city like Bristol, with private enterprise finding itself in considerable difficulties of competing with the local authorities in various fields. In such a city, with diversification of industry, despite all the onslaughts of Socialism, private enterprise still manages to carry on, because even if one is knocked out another can take its place, but that sort of fine balance which has gone on a long time might be disturbed if a local authority found itself in a somewhat different and special financial position.
  That leads me to the point, which I think is a valid one, that however much

  1273
  one admires local authorities as a whole, and the splendid work they do in co-ordinating all the things which are necessary in a city or town or county, they are very vulnerable to the pressures of their electors.
  We in Parliament are vulnerable to the extent that there can be a national agitation about one thing or another, and some of us may even feel moved to do something about it. If there is enough agitation, perhaps enough hon. Members are interested, and something is done about it, that is if the Government allow it, or if the Government have the money to do it.
  Local authorities, however, are much more vulnerable, because the action of public opinion on them is much more violent. There is a great deal of noise about public opinion venting itself on the House of Commons. When people feel passionately about a particular issue they come and sit in the Central Lobby—many of them on the floor—but in the case of local authorities the electors have a much more dramatic effect on the elected representatives, and expenditure by a local authority can have a much more dramatic public effect on the electors.
  Mr. Stan Newens: Is it a bad thing for the electors to have an effect on their elected representatives?
  Mr. Cooke: If the hon. Gentleman had listened with a little more attention, instead of beginning with a prejudiced mind, he would have realised that I was leading him on to say, and perhaps he will feel pleased about it, that in the case of a local authority the impact of the electors on the elected representatives is much stronger and more immediate than it is on the Parliamentary representatives.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: That is democracy.
  Mr. Cooke: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman and I find ourselves at one, perhaps for the only occasion in our Parliamentary lives.
  A local authority is very much at the mercy of the electors, and that is where the question of finance comes in. There will always be a tendency to give in to strong local pressures. Local authorities have given in to them in the past, and no doubt they will do so in the future, but
  1274
  I hope that by passing the Bill we will not make it easier for them to do so.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Surely the greatest pressure is the other way. The pressure is exerted by the ratepayers to reduce expenditure, sometimes on things which are necessary.
  Mr. Cooke: The ratepayers would like to see the rates go down but every ratepayer wants the city or county council to spend money on something, and the two never balance out. The result is that the expenditure continues to rise, not necessarily because of vitally essential things like housing and education—the right sort of education I hasten to add—but because of other things which are not so necessary. Nevertheless, if the money is available there will be a tendency to spend it.
  Clause 1(2) says that the moneys are to be issued
  "during the period beginning with the passing of this Act and ending on the day on which a further Act granting money for the purposes of those loans comes into operation. …"
  This seems to be somewhat indefinite. It may be in accord with the precedents, but it seems that we are being asked to vote a large sum of money, and we are not being told when we will have to vote some more, and for that reason I think that the Government owe us a little further explanation.
  My remarks would have been shorter had it not been for the fact that they seem to have aroused a certain amount of controversy, and even anger among some hon. Gentlemen opposite, albeit anger of a rather synthetic nature. I hope that the Government will be able to give some further explanations of the matters at issue here. Should they not do so, I must warn them that the Bill will have to be examined most carefully during its later stages.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: For a moment when I listened to the wide-ranging comments of hon. Gentlemen opposite, I thought that we were back on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I resisted the temptation to join in that debate, but I am on home ground when discussing local government. It should be said from these benches at least that the Financial Secretary's announcement

  1275
  that some authorities in the North-West and other parts of England and Scotland are to be able to get an extra 10 per cent. from the P.W.L.B. will be welcomed in every town hall, parish hall, and council hall in those parts of the country. The need is very great. If my hon. and right hon. Friends have done nothing else in this Parliament they have won themselves many friends among the treasurers' associations. "A friend in need is a friend indeed". Local authorities are probably the biggest hire-purchase people in business, and I would have thought they would get rather more sympathetic treatment from hon. Members opposite than they have received so far.
  I pay tribute to the treasurers in our town halls and parish councils. Over the last two or three years they have had to be financial wizards and jugglers. I know many who have had nervous breakdowns for various lengths of time through having to juggle money on a seven-day-in and seven-day-out basis in order to do their best for their ratepayers.
  I want the Financial Secretary to answer two points. He said that he thought that it would be extremely difficult to foresee the demand that would be made on the Public Works Loan Board by local authorities. Can he give some indication of what forecast has been made and what sort of reviews are in process? This has been mentioned in different debates from time to time, but it is essential to mention it again at this time.
  My hon. and learned Friend also said that £500 million should be enough to meet the needs of local authorities for the next 12–18 months. Frankly, we could spend that on Merseyside in 12 months and still ask for more. This is a welcome Bill, and I hope that it has a speedy passage but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) said, it is an interim Measure, and if there is any responsibility for the complaint of hon. Members opposite that we have not got the second tier of our two-tier system of interest it is theirs. We could have had it if there had been a June election instead of an October one. Then there might have been time for my right hon. Friends to bring forward the necessary measures to give local authorities a two-tier system of interest.
  1276
  Those who are members of local authorities know what happens. If a person is elected he goes through the highways committee, the housing committee, the health committee and the parks and allotments committee from May to January, saying, "This is a very desirable and necessary project. Put it on the list", but in January and February he goes through the list with a fine-toothed comb, and all the necessary and desirable things are cut, cut, cut, all the way along the line.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: Does not the hon. Member agree that it would be very much easier if each committee were told at the beginning of the year what it could spend? It could then work out its plans accordingly.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. We cannot pursue the structure of local government at the moment.
  Mr. Ogden: My point is in order—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was not calling the hon. Member to order; I was calling the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) to order.
  Mr. Ogden: Any time you wish to call me to order it is quite all right, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The point is that the criticism comes rather oddly from hon. Members opposite. Having delayed the Election from June to October they gave us no time to do anything to help local authorities in their finances for this year. Next year we hope for something. Certainly so long as we have a system in which a local authority which wants to do something necessary and desirable has to submit its plans to the Ministry in London, which says, "If you want to build a swimming pool, pay the current market rate of interest for it", there will be difficulties. Having received approval for a project which is regarded as desirable a local authority is entitled to expect a reduced rate of interest for that service.
  There is no need to emphasise to my right hon. and hon. Friends the urgency of this need. I hope that we will take not only this interim step but that we will bring in speedily other proposals to help us and our people.
  10.50 p.m.
  Mr. F. V. Corfield: I am only impelled to intervene

  1277
  by the intervention of the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). He will remember an Adjournment debate in, I think, the autumn of 1962 in which he deployed almost precisely the same arguments as he deployed tonight, and which it was my task to answer. I recollect the argument which I used in reply to the hon. Gentleman. In the first place, of course, I objected that help to local authorities or to owner-occupiers on the basis of a fixed interest rate was nothing more nor less than an open-ended subsidy from the Treasury, and one which the Treasury would have no means of calculating in advance because it would depend, on the one hand, on the market rate of interest and, on the other, on the size of the building programme.
  I recall the latter years of food rationing, which was linked to food subsidy, when we had the ludicrous situation that the rations of this country were deliberately kept lower than they need have been—after five long years of war and for several years afterwards—merely because to have increased the rations would have increased the burden on the Treasury. This is the sort of danger into which one falls if one attaches a subsidy to this sort of criteria.
  The second reason I attacked the hon. Gentleman was that I could not see and cannot see now how this argument can be confined to housing. What is the distinction in this sphere between houses and hospitals? What is the distinction between houses and schools and many other items of local authority expenditure or of national expenditure? All these programmes, whether roads, schools, hospitals, or old people's homes are, in their way, equally urgent and equally important.
  I went on to say that if one visualises an extension of this sort, one would be taking out of the range of the monetary weapon a very large section of the economy. I would agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite if I believed for one moment the sort of propaganda which the party opposite were putting over at the General Election, that an economy such as ours, which depends entirely on our overseas trading position, can be run—at any rate in the foreseeable future—without an occasional touch of the brake or the accelerator as events demand.
  1278
  It was the party opposite which fought the election on the basis of no more stop-go and which repeated the claim that they utterly rejected any policy associated with stop-go in what they described as an "emergency" White Paper on coming into power and on having, as they put it, assessed the financial position of the country. Nevertheless—I am sure the Treasury Bench will be the first to admit this—they have found the monetary weapon an absolute essential in stabilising the economic position of this country and fending off a run on the pound.
  I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he really thinks that we would conceivably help the stability of the pound and the confidence of our overseas lenders which is an essential to it if we cast away the monetary weapon over such a wide field as this. I was surprised at the giggles which greeted my intervention reminding hon. Gentlemen opposite that it was they who made the promises. I am on record in the adjournment debate to which I referred as saying quite firmly that I did not believe in favourable interest rates as the basis of subsidy for items of this sort.
  I am equally on record as saying that I do not believe that a Chancellor of the Exchequer can be deprived of the monetary weapon over such a wide field, in other words, that one cannot guarantee to run this country—
  Mr. Frank Allaun rose—
  Mr. Corfield: I will give way in a moment.
  One cannot guarantee to run this country without some element of occasional stop-go, or brake and accelerator. It is astonishing that any hon. Gentleman opposite should say that there is something meritorious in a party which makes promises which are clearly opposed to economic interest of this country, as against a party which says, "We do not believe in this and we shall not make promises."
  Mr. Allaun: The hon. Member says that he is opposed to any kind of subsidising of public housing in this country—
  Mr. Corfield: Yes, subsidising through special interest rates.
  Mr. Allaun: May we take it from that that he is equally opposed to any kind of help to owner-occupiers of this kind? Does he oppose both pledges which the Labour Party gave at the election to help the two sections of the community in this way?
  Mr. Corfield: Quite frankly, I do not think that this is the day to do it. There are far more dangers in it than advantages.
  When we hear of these comparisons with other countries we should remember that they are entirely false unless we know the whole structure of their housing subsidisation. So far as I recollect, speaking off the cuff, the Americans do as the hon. Member said, but they have no other kind of subsidy, and the same applies in Germany. In Sweden, although they have subsidy for houses of all types in the form of slightly lower than market interest rates, they have no other form of subsidy for houses. The basis of subsidisation is a direct subsidy on an individual basis on what is their equivalent of P.A.Y.E. coding. We are wasting our time in trying to draw comparisons with other countries unless we draw them over the whole field of housing subsidies.
  10.56 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I shall not detain the House for more than about five minutes, but one or two points raised in the debate require an answer.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) that the educational policies of the present Government are likely to increase considerably the needs for capital borrowing over the next five to 10 or 15 years. Apart from the fact that there are many areas where there is need for a radical approach to clearing slum schools, which is particularly true of the north of England, the comprehensive plans of the present Government will increase educational expenditure in relation to capital development. It is obvious from existing evidence that the number of children who will stay at school and enter sixth forms and the other requirements in relation to laboratories which children who have been deprived of the benefits of grammar school education will get through the comprehensive system will increase capital development in future.
  1280
  There is great capital development in my constituency in connection with a comprehensive school. Far from this being, as the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said, a nefarious doctrinaire scheme, people who speak in that way are doctrinaire. It would be out of order to pursue that point further, but the educational policies of the Government will rightly involve increases in capital development. This leads me to support the Bill because, although it does not go far enough to help local authorities, it will help them with some short-term problems.
  I urge the Government Front Bench to pay attention to the soundly argued case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). It may be that subsidisation on an interest rate basis is less effective than in some other way, but it is a fact that capital costs of housing are constantly spiralling and unless something is done by way of interest-rate subsidisation or by other means, the burden on the occupants of those houses will become tremendous. When I heard of what is happening in Manchester I was glad to know that in my constituency rents have increased by only 2s., but that is for this year and prospects of a further increase of 2s. are not welcome.
  The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) said that we did not want open-ended subsidies of this kind. That depends on the social priorities. For many years we have given open-ended subsidies to defence expenditure the eventual commitment of which we have never been certain about. If we really feel, as I do, that we are deficient in the housing standards which we maintain in this country—and there is abundant evidence to prove that we spend too small a proportion of our national income on housing—then the case for acting at least on the lines indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East is worth considering.
  Many of the difficulties which have been raised tonight and many of the problems which will remain even when this Bill has been passed point to the problem which my hon. Friends and I have constantly raised in the House; the urgent need for a complete reorganisation of the whole basis of financing local government. The hon. Member for

  1281
  Worcester may be justified in taunting the Government for not acting sooner, but it falls badly from the lips of those who for 13 years not only did not act in an effort to solve the problem but who, by their revaluation legislation policy and many of the other Measures which they took or did not take, made the problem even worse. I urge the Government to give the earliest possible consideration—although presumably that will have to be done in the next Session—to the introduction of a complete reorganisation of the basis of financing local government with the aim of getting rid of the antiquated system which we have at present.
  11.2 p.m.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I wish to concentrate on the problems we have on Merseyside in regard to the borrowing of money, because it is important that these problems should be kept in mind when discussing a Bill of this sort. I wish to make it clear at the outset that on Merseyside the Bill will be warmly welcomed. There is no doubt that the Government will find a great many friends in the Liverpool area as a result of the provision enabling authorities to borrow an extra 10 per cent. from the Public Works Loans Board.
  Having said that, it should also be remembered that this additional sum will be insufficient to solve the problem in areas such as Merseyside, where a tremendous special problem exists. Consider the difficulties in an area which has 80,000 slum dwellings to be cleared and 40,000 people on the housing register. While some of those people are at present living in the slum dwellings, one has a picture of the special housing problems which some authorities have.
  Borrowing money in the market at 6 per cent. or 7 per cent. places an enormous strain on the local authority. It also means that the interest on the borrowed money must be passed on to the tenants of council property. Much has been said about people who live in council property and people who live in private property. Whatever is said about either category, the time is approaching when—certainly in places like Liverpool which have special problems—one will have to be a millionaire
  1282
  to rent a council flat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] For a two-bedroomed council flat people are paying £4 10s. a week—this in an area in which some of the lowest wages are earned.
  These difficulties have arisen because of rapidly increasing interest rates. I do not have the exact figures with me, but for some years the Liverpool local authority has been borrowing money for its housing programme at the same rate as it has been paying out in interest charges on the money it borrowed in the past. We cannot go on for ever with this increasing burden, which not only falls on the local authorities and the ratepayers, who, incidentally, are not living in council property, but equally on the council tenants themselves. Therefore, I want to make a plea particularly for areas like Merseyside that there must be special consideration. We need to go much further than we have done in this Bill.
  I would ask the Government to tell us what will be the rate of interest at which we can borrow this money, because I am told that this has already been stated as being at the market level. I am going to say quite definitely that this is not good enough. The quicker we can reach a position where we have two-tier interest charges, particularly for areas like Merseyside with their enormous housing problems, the better it will be in order that we can overcome these problems. That is the only point I want to make, because it is vital that this must be stressed again, again and again.
  Four years ago when the Conservative Party took office in Liverpool they introduced, not a differential scheme, but a similar type of scheme in which they overcame at that stage the problem of balancing the housing revenue account. They did it by increasing the rents of corporation tenants. The result was that in the first year or so we had a surplus. This surplus has now disappeared, and it is estimated that by next year we shall have a deficit of somewhere in the region of £1,250,000. It is an accumulating deficit, and so it will go on. I make a plea to the Front Bench that we should go much further than we have in the Bill and that something must be done quickly in order to overcome the problems which areas like Merseyside have.
  11.8 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I rise with some sympathy for the party opposite, because in this debate theirs is a melancholy position. As one understands the attitude adopted by their principal speakers so far, they are extending a qualified welcome to this Bill. Their political philosophy, of course, is opposed to social enterprise of all kinds. When one hears Conservatives speaking about local government and the need for social enterprise to prosper, one realises that they have to adopt a certain hypocrisy in order to take part in debates of this kind.
  As my hon. Friend, the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) has said, the question of interest rates is of paramount importance for local authorities. While I welcome the promise in this Bill that there will be greater powers and possibilities for borrowing by local authorities, the gravamen of their problem is the rate of interest at which they can borrow money. My hon. Friend referred to the city of Manchester. He mentioned that there is a deficit in the housing revenue account of some £600,000. I appreciate that this is by no means the largest deficit facing a local authority today, but, believe me, there is strong feeling in Manchester about the consequences of the deficit with which we are faced. The increase in rents now recommended by the housing committee of the city of Manchester is of the order of 7s. 6d. for the average type house. Some council house tenants face increases of 12s. 9d.
  I appreciate that the Government would have wished to bring forward their proposals about interest rates much earlier than September of this year, but what has not yet been mentioned is the appalling economic crisis which my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench inherited. There is now a widespread understanding of that crisis in the country. Nevertheless, I hope that considerable urgency will be attached to the drive to reduce interest rates. We are not likely to have an acceptable incomes policy unless we have, at the same time, an acceptable prices policy, and there is no more important aspect of that problem today than house rents.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), I
  1284
  am happy that the Bill will particularly help local authorities in the North, which, in the main, have the largest problem. The city of Manchester has the proudest record of all in slum clearance, but as it continues to tackle that problem so the deficit in its housing revenue account grows. I therefore appeal to the Government to do everything possible to ensure that there is a drastic reappraisal of local government finance and, in particular, a drastic reduction in interest rates.
  Mr. Charles Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The annunciator outside the Chamber indicates that the last contribution was made by me instead of by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).
  Mr. Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon and that of the operator of the annunciator. The error was entirely mine. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter, as it gives me the opportunity to apologise.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. R. W. Brown: I had not intended to join in the debate, Mr. Speaker, but since there has been so much special pleading for other parts of the country I should like to urge that special account be taken of the local authorities in the Greater London area. I do so particularly as this is the beginning of the period when those local authorities are under tremendous financial pressure due to the reorganisation of local government and are faced with the very severe problem of trying to obtain money at a reasonable rate at a time when everyone is under the same pressure.
  I followed the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) when he discussed interest rates. I had the privilege of meeting the hon. Gentleman when he was Parliamentary Secretary. I did not follow his argument particularly keenly then, and he still does not seem to have learned very much about the things I tried to impart to him then. I have never believed that the only way to finance local government is by subsidy. I believe that there is far greater merit in getting rid of the subsidy factor and giving either entirely interest-free or low-interest loans to local authorities. It is a

  1285
  subsidy in the sense that it is a specific subsidy in terms of a loan, but I think it will be found cheaper in the long run than giving subsidies in terms of special moneys for various factors, including the odd bits and pieces about which we know so much. If the loan were given at a cheap interest rate, a local authority would be in a better position to understand its affairs and would know what it was getting, which at the present time it does not know after its negotiation with the Ministry.
  Secondly, I would ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that one of the problems of local authorities having to finance their money by way of loan on the market is that they are all fighting each other to get the money at the same time. We have the silly situation where local authorities all over the place are trying to get money from the same broker, with the inevitable result that the interest rate is going up and the money is offered to the authority that can pay the most interest. In the end, because the local authority has to have the money, it pays a higher interest rate to get it and beats someone else who wants it for the same purpose.
  Is it not possible for the Government to set up its own clearing house in this respect? In London, this has been achieved privately between the local authorities, but it seems to me that it would be of advantage if the Government broker did the work for the authorities. It would save them having to fight for the money and would save the broker's fee they have to pay. Seven-day money particularly, a large amount of which has to be borrowed, is very expensive from the brokerage point of view.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: Would my hon. Friend not suggest that the Public Works Loans Board should act as the broker and the clearing house, and would it not be better for the local authorities to raise their finance not through a broker but through the Public Works Loans Board?
  Mr. Brown: That is in fact the point about which I was asking my hon. Friend. Could the Public Works Loans Board not act as their clearing house?
  I recognise the problem that the Government have run into, and I recognise the point that my hon. Friend from Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) made—it
  1286
  is no good hon. Gentlemen opposite smiling and sniggering—but the financial situation which the Government found in October meant that the things one would have wanted to do at an earlier stage have not been able to be done. As soon as it is financially possible, my right hon. Friends will embody the promises they made, but, meanwhile, I ask them to consider these minor points, by which they could help local authorities to save money for the ratepayers.
  11.18 p.m.
  Mr. John M. Temple: From these benches, I would make it quite clear that we give the Bill an unqualified welcome. In fact, it is an extension of Conservative policy.
  We know perfectly well that local authorities at the present time need this assistance, and the matter which is uppermost in my mind in thinking about the Bill is the significance which persons overseas today attach to the great growth of local government expenditure and all other public expenditure in the country.
  Very significantly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), speaking over the weekend and reported extensively in the Press, said that it was no good blinding ourselves in this country to the financial facts of life, because those financial facts of life were very, very well known overseas. What I propose to deal with is the whole financial aspect of public capital expenditure in the local authority world, because that is what this Public Works Loans Board money is meant to meet, to a very large extent.
  Before I turn to the main gravamen of my speech, I should like to deal with the various points that have been brought up in the debate. It was unfortunate that we had to commence a debate of this importance after 10 o'clock at night. However, I am glad that a good many hon. Members on both sides did get into the debate.
  The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) speaks frequently on the subject of high interest rates. I remember a great number of his speeches. I can imagine his tremendous disappointment at the present time with the Labour Party's performance. After the promises made at the General Election, it must be

  1287
  very depressing for him and his constituents to see the results of the policies of the Labour Party.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) rightly touched on educational expenditure, and I shall pick that up later. He also emphasised the necessity for financial discipline, and that is just what is being watched overseas.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) paid a very real tribute to local treasurers. I echo that tribute because I have personal knowledge of the great work which they do for local government and for the administration of our country. I know perfectly well of the difficulties which they have been facing for a considerable time. The hon. Member also asked for forecasts of spending. I shall reinforce that with some other comments regarding the programme of spending which the Government envisage under their policies.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield) dismissed the question of special interest rates for housing. I agree with him. If one has special interest rates for housing, one must have them for all aspects of local government expenditure. That point was emphasised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown). He wanted special interest rates for local authorities. He did not specify in what particular sphere, and so I took it to mean that he wanted them in all spheres.
  Mr. R. W. Brown Mr. R. W. Brown indicated assent.
  Mr. Temple: I am glad to know that I have the hon. Gentleman's agreement on that point.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) spoke about the cost of comprehensive schools—
  Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has not spoken in the debate, although he was anxious to do so.
  Mr. Temple: I was misled, as was the indicator. I understand that it was the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) who spoke of the cost of comprehensive education. There was a leading article in the Sunday Times on this subject yesterday. I read it with
  1288
  great attention. It drew attention to the fact that comprehensive education would involve a great deal of capital expenditure by local authorities.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) seemed to be addressing his remarks to his own Front Bench, and I hope he will get an answer to those comments from there. What he was complaining about was the high interest rates which exist at the present time under the Labour Government.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles Morris) said that the Opposition were giving a qualified welcome to the Bill—[Interruption.] I understand that it was the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris). I made it perfectly clear in my opening remarks that it was an extension of Conservative policy, and, therefore, we give it an unqualified welcome. I want to pick up a few of the points made during the debate—
  Mr. Rhodes: The hon. Member says that the Bill is an extension of Conservative policy. I do not want to be pedantic about it, but surely he means that it is a continuation and extension of the previous Government's policy. There is nothing peculiar to Conservatism about the policy. In fact, public expenditure is peculiar to Socialism.
  Mr. Temple: There is a certain amount of logic in what the hon. Gentleman says, but in 1963 the Conservative Party in its White Paper Cmnd. 2162 laid down that local authorities would be able in future, taking one year with another, to borrow 20 per cent. of their capital expenditure from the Public Works Loan Board, and that as one year followed another there would be annual 10 per cent. increments until in 1967 local authorities would be able to borrow 50 per cent. of their requirements from the Board. I should have thought that what has been said by the Financial Secretary today was very much out of line with that policy.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Temple: If I give way any more my speech will be extraordinarily long, I warn the House, but I will give way.
  Mr. Orme: How does the hon. Gentleman answer the point that, under the

  1289
  Conservative Government, the rate of council house building—one of the most important and necessary things to the country—went down, while under this Government it will go up?
  Mr. Temple: I was not treating this as a housing debate, but I will answer that point. On the Conservative benches we have always been more concerned with the total number of houses built, and during our period of office the number built consistently beat the target set by the Labour Government by 50 per cent. However, if I make this into a housing debate, Mr. Speaker will call me to order.
  In this debate I want to say firstly something about the scale of local authority borrowing, then to refer to the difficulty of raising loan capital, and finally to the control of public expenditure, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) referred, and then to draw some conclusions. This Bill, as I have said, is an extension of Conservative policy. The only difference is that, at present, the Government have laid down that there are to be special allocations of the Board's money to the less prosperous areas.
  The Financial Secretary told us that the Government had decided to designate the less prosperous areas—and we were glad to hear that designation—as Scotland, Wales, the North-West and the Northern Region—and that they were to have a 40 per cent. allocation. But, of course, in addition to these less prosperous areas and in addition to the quotas laid down by the Board in January and rephased in March, we have the Board in the position that it is the lender of last resort.
  I have been making a few calculations of my own on the basis of the fact that all the smaller local authorities can borrow 100 per cent. of their requirements, taking one year with another. I would hazard a guess that this £500 million will not last very long into next year, although we have been told that it will last well into next year. I would like a mere specific date, if possible, from the Government.
  Here I give a welcome to the simplification of the mortgage procedure. It will be useful to local authorities.
  1290
  I turn now to the scale of the problem of local authority borrowing. In 1962, the figure given in Command Paper No. 2612 was £550 million for new works. The total given in the Minister of Housing and Local Government's annual report for 1964 was £1,082 million, which was 19·7 per cent. up on the 1963 figure. I seldom quote my own speeches, but on 27th November, 1962, speaking in a debate on public investment, having special regard to the position of local authority capital borrowing and after a reference to sterling as a reserve currency—for I attach great importance to local authority borrowing particularly in the short term in the context of sterling as a reserve currency—I said:
  "In these sectors, we may well end up with an increase of something like 20 per cent.
  If we are dealing with cumulative increases of about 20 per cent. we are facing a rapidly increasing rate of growth of capital expenditure in the local authority sector. …"
  So my forecasts have been borne out by events. They were not entirely in line with those of the Government at the time. Later in that speech I added:
  "I hope very much … that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will not hesitate to cut back this rate of expenditure if the existing slack in the economy is seen to have been taken up."
  At the time, the Conservative Government were looking forward to an increase in capital expenditure through local authorities of about—and it turned out to be—20 per cent. just because there was slack in the economy at the time.
  I make a forecast tonight. I am going to suggest, on a direct projection of a rate of increase of 20 per cent. per annum, the amount of capital expenditure by local authorities will be at least £1,300 million in the current year. I should like the Treasury Bench to say whether it regards that forecast as realistic.
  In that debate on public investment I concluded by saying—and this again was with reference to local authority capital expenditure—that
  "… we may be facing a serious state of affairs in which public investment will take far too large a share of the national cake."
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber), the

  1291
  then Economic Secretary, winding up the debate, said:
  "My hon. Friend the Member for the City of Chester was quite right to strike a warning note."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th November, 1962; Vol. 668, c. 245–327.]
  Therefore, at that time, even against the background of there being a considerable slack in the economy, I was very much exercised in my mind about the amount of borrowing for public expenditure by local authorities.
  Having dealt with the long-term loan position, I should like to turn now to the question of short-term debt. I have one or two comments to make as a result of Parliamentary Questions which I have asked comparatively recently. The short-term debt of local authorities is a very serious matter, particularly in the context of international finances. Between 1955 and 1963 there was an increase in the total short-term debt of local authorities from 3½ per cent. of their total debt to some 15 per cent. of their debt, and in 1963 the total of short-term debt of local authorities was £1,200 million and was causing great concern. This is largely why there was a change in Conservative policy for financing local authorities at that time.
  It has been said in this debate that the target was set by the then Conservative Government for all local authorities within five years to reduce the total of their own individual short-term debt to 20 per cent. of their debt. On 8th July this year I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the current position of local authority short-term debt to the latest convenient date. If the Treasury Bench has more up-to-date figures I should be glad to hear them later, but as at 31st March, 1964, 446 local authorities had £311 million outstanding of short-term debt which was in excess of 20 per cent. of their own indebtedness. This was made up as to approximately £1 million each for 20 counties, approximately £1 million each for 172 borough councils, including county boroughs, and approximately £250,000 each from 253 district councils. The short-term excess of 20 per cent. of debt was therefore very widely spread throughout the local authorities of England and Wales.
  I was concerned not only with individual short-term debt but with the
  1292
  total of short-term debt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to answer a Parliamentary Question of mine on 8th July giving the position of total short-term debt of local authorities as at 31st March this year. I was staggered to get the reply which stated that on 31st March there was £1,600 million of short-term debt owing by local authorities. This was 30 per cent. more than the figure in 1963, and the figure in 1963 was itself causing the gravest concern. I suspect that the present short-term debt of local authorities is greater than 15 per cent. of the total debt of local authorities. I hope that we shall have an answer to this question, because I am concerned about this short-term position.
  I am deeply concerned about both the long-term and the short-term position of local authority borrowing and we must face the fact that these figures are being watched extraordinarily carefully by our friends abroad—and I ask the House to note that I use the words "friends abroad". I should like to quote from The Times of 15th July this year from a report by its European Economic Correspondent headed, "Warning to Britain by Partners".
  "Britain has been strongly advised to take further action to tighten up her economic programme. … The exact measures which are needed have not been suggested. This is a political decision for the British Government but the general feeling amongst Britain's partners is that the over-riding priority is to make cuts in Government expenditure."
  That is what has been said by "Britain's partners in Europe". In 1963 in Cmd. Paper 2162 it was estimated that local authority capital expenditure was one-seventh of total capital expenditure in this country. What I would like to ask is what is the proportion of local authority capital expenditure today to total capital expenditure in this country? I believe that local government capital expenditure has been growing at a relatively much faster rate than any other growth rate of capital expenditure in the country.
  Mr. Orme: So it should.
  Mr. Temple: Maybe; what I am stating are facts. I believe that today local authority capital expenditure may well be 20 per cent. of total capital expenditure in this country. The figures we are talking about tonight are not peanuts at all, they

  1293
  are very important and very large figures indeed. Against such figures the total defence expenditure of the country—I will not say it pales into insignificance, but it is very much smaller than the total expenditure of local authorities on capital and the current account in this country year by year.
  Now I turn to one of the great difficulties facing the whole world today the raising of loan capital. Loan capital is one of the most difficult things to raise today in what I call a "capital-hungry world" Demands for capital are worldwide. In farm and factory today there are two means of raising productivity. One is through an increase in the skills of the operator; a much more important way of raising productivity is to put more power behind the elbow of the farmworker, or more power behind the elbow of the factory worker, and that power demands capital. Here again I quote from The Times of 15th July, in a review of the 25 per cent. growth which is aimed at by the First Secretary of State. The article, by the City Editor, entitled "Limit on Economic Growth" particularly referred to supply of capital. It said:
  "Achievement of 25 per cent. growth by 1970 looks incredibly unlikely. A report from the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge, Exploring 1970, makes it seem virtually impossible."
  And makes it seem impossible for three reasons, the third of which was supply of capital. It goes on:
  "Finally, the supply of capital seems unlikely to meet 1970 requirements. Savings as a proportion of total income in 1970 needs to be between 15·5 and 15·7 per cent. The corresponding figure for 1960 was 12·3 per cent."
  I would like to ask the Treasury Bench what they regard as being the percentage of savings to capital at the presentlame. I believe, unfortunately, that savings under the present Administration are dropping, and that is one of the reasons why taxation is going up.
  Unfortunately, high interest rates in periods of high inflation such as we have, cease to attract the money. If we need proof of this I would like to look firstly abroad, and then to a recent example in this country. When France revalued the franc it was necessary for the French Treasury to issue bonds with a gold exchange clause.
  1294
  Looking at the international bond market, I am afraid that people may well be looking for an inflation-proof bond or an inflation-proof debenture. It is significant—and I am sure that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has not missed this point in the financial papers today—that there is a prospectus in the Financial Times advertising a cost-of-living debenture stock. I do not think that the financial world has ever heard of a cost-of-living debenture stock before, but perhaps, just because we have a Labour Government, it is necessary for borrowers to be sure that they will be repaid in terms which will be of value. Therefore, the Bandar Property Company Ltd., is issuing a cost-of-living debenture stock, the terms of repayment of which will be based upon the cost of living and the interest terms of which will escalate should the cost of living rise. These are significant developments and they have, I believe, a great bearing on the raising of loan capital in what I describe as a capital-hungry world.
  I could not say that recent policies of the Labour Government have been helping the situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker), who played such a prominent part in the Finance Bill debates, has referred to the effects of taxation, and I will take up briefly some of the points that he made. I believe that the Corporation Tax will encourage debenture borrowing which will be in direct competition with local authority borrowing. I believe that the Capital Gains Tax, with its certain exemptions—
  Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order. Would not you think, Mr. Speaker, that this was getting wide of the subject of debate?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes, I would think so, but I think that it is just within Second Reading—just within.
  Mr. Temple: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This matter has been referred to earlier in the debate—
  Mr. Speaker: That still does not render it proof against Rulings of the Chair.
  Mr. Temple: The effect of the Budget, through both Corporation Tax and Capital Gains Tax, has had an unfortunate effect on fixed-interest borrowing,

  1295
  and what we are talking about tonight is definitely fixed-interest borrowing.
  I sometimes think that theoreticians in finance do not always anticipate the results of their theories. This is, possibly, an unanticipated result which will certainly have a boomerang effect on the loans which will have to be raised so that the Public Works Loan Board can have money to lend to local authorities.
  I said that I would touch upon the question of finance for comprehensive schools. I mentioned that this was referred to in the important leading article in the Sunday Times. I was glad that this was referred to by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes). I noticed also what I regarded as an important reference to this matter in a leading article in The Times on 14th July this year referring to the policies laid down in the Ministerial Circular by the present Minister of Education and referring particularly to the financial effects of those policies.
  The Times said:
  "The circular is a little like a ship starting off on a long voyage with all its flags flying and no stores in the hold."
  That is exactly where the Labour Government is at the present time. It certainly has all its flags flying, but I very much doubt whether it has much in the way of stores in the hold.
  Here I should like to express a strictly personal view with regard to commitments in local authority spending. I believe that there is a case today for reviewing whether the school-leaving age should be raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is just as relevant to capital expenditure on school building as the question of comprehensive schools. I say that I for my part believe that a fresh review should be made as to whether this would be good value for money at the present time, because I believe that public money is scarce and that we should get 100 per cent. value for that capital expenditure which will be financed through local authorities borrowing from the Public Works Loan Board.
  I only have one other aspect of Labour policy which I regard as being very detrimental to the question of local authority borrowing, and that is the abject failure of the Labour Party to hold down prices. This is at the bottom of the trouble of high interest rates.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order. I am sorry to trouble you, Mr. Speaker, but I raised with you the point whether bringing in Corporation Tax was in order, and you said that it was, marginally. Next we had comprehensive schools. Now we are coming to the prices level. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is involving all political activities. Surely it is beyond the scope of the debate on Second Reading of this Bill?
  Mr. Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member has yet involved himself in all political activity. The immediate implication of the sentence was that extravagance on the part of the local authorities injures their prospects of borrowing. To that extent the hon. Member is still within order.
  Mr. Temple: Of course, I readily recognise the sensitivity of the party opposite when I talk about rising prices, so I do not propose to make any further reference to that particular matter, because I know it is a very sensitive spot for the Labour Party. Many people no doubt noted an important article in the Economist on 3rd July. It referred to the question of control of public expenditure, and what that article said was that there should be a streamlined Cabinet in which there would be an economic overlord, and as the article said:
  "No more nonsense about rivalry between economists and the money bags."
  Mr. Speaker: No more nonsense about the way in which you make up your Cabinet in connection with this Bill.
  Mr. Temple: I was going straight to the point from my quotation to saying that the Economist's view, which I share, was to put in an economic overlord, and I believe that that economic overlord should be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be armed with economic advisers, and I know enough about economics to know—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not quarrel with the hon. Member's knowledge of economics, but I draw his attention to the fact that he must remain reasonably in relation to the purpose of this Bill.
  Mr. Temple: I absolutely concur, and I certainly shall not be just out of order any more when I say that, having made

  1297
  that observation about the economic overlord, I was just drawing to my conclusions on this Bill.
  My conclusions are that public expenditure on capital account is far outstripping savings at the present time, that that problem itself is accelerating, and that Labour policies have aggravated the position. I have already indicated in which direction they have aggravated the position—and that increases in taxation are no alternative whatsoever to savings. Further, squeezes must apply equally in both the public and the private sectors.
  Here I would draw the attention of the House to a statement by Lord Cromer at the bankers' dinner on 1st February at the Mansion House. He was specifically referring to this question of local authority expenditure, and he spoke of
  "activities in the industrial, commercial and financial world which contribute most to our economic strength. Room must be found for these essential wealth-creating activities to grow and prosper, even if this means, as it does, that major policy changes are called for to reduce the ever-growing burden of public expenditure at home and overseas."
  On my main line of argument I have the support of the Governor of the Bank of England, and I come to the inescapable conclusion that the only thing which will restore financial confidence at home and abroad is the immediate return of a Conservative Government.
  We realise the need for the Bill. We have no intention of opposing it, but what we want to see is more effective control of public finance.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. MacDermot: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I would seek to answer some of the questions which have been asked.
  I can say, perhaps more aptly than is usually said, that this has been a wide-ranging debate. We have ranged from the question of comprehensive schools, to the school-leaving age, to the need for an economic overlord, and I know not what; but I would remind the House that the Bill deals with a fairly limited matter. It does not deal with the extent of the capital requirements of local authorities, still less with the means by which they should be controlled—the need for discipline in these matters, as
  1298
  it was put by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke).
  The system of financial discipline for local authorities is, of course, controlled by the Government in a number of ways. For a number of major services, like housing and education, both of which have been referred to quite a lot this evening, the authorities have to get their capital programmes approved by the responsible Department, and in addition most capital expenditure is met from borrowing, and local authorities must get loan sanction from the Ministry of Housing before raising loans to finance these and other services. That is the procedure by which the volume of capital expenditure by local authorities is subject to control by the central Government.
  The hon. Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple) welcomed the Bill as being an extension of Conservative policy. In view of the welcome that he gave it, it might perhaps be churlish on my part to remind him that the Conservative policy to which he referred was a reversal of previous Conservative policy and was a somewhat belated move in the direction of Socialist policy.
  Mr. Temple: I have already acknowledged that in my speech.
  Mr. MacDermot: The hon. Gentleman is gracious enough to acknowledge it, and I thank him for that, so let us proceed on this amicable basis of agreement, that what we are seeking to do is to assist local authorities as far as we are able within reasonable limits, and within the limits of what we can afford and of our financial situation, and that it is right to do so through the medium of the P.W.L.B.
  I was asked for more factual information, and in so far as I am able to I shall be glad to try to supply it. I was asked for more information about the extent of local authority borrowing last year. The figures are that their borrowing for new capital works totalled £845 million. These are the figures for Great Britain. Borrowing to re-finance maturing long-term debt was £630 million, giving a total borrowing requirement of £1,475 million. That was financed as to net increases in temporary debt of £320 million, P.W.L.B. loan of the same amount, £320 million, and other long-term

  1299
  borrowing of £835 million, that making the total up to £1,475 million.
  In addition to being asked about the short-term borrowing of local authorities—which I have given as £320 million—I was asked how far local authorities had proceeded towards reducing to the level of 20 per cent. of their debt that part which is in the form of short-term borrowing. The House will remember that the great majority of local authorities are well within the 20 per cent. figure. Quite a substantial number—though few in relation to the total—of local authorities which have high borrowing commitments are above the 20 per cent. figure. Although there has been a net increase in temporary debt of £320 million taking local authorities as a whole and the increase itself was more than 20 per cent. of the net increase in total debt, the temporary debt outstanding at 31st March last was still only 19 per cent. of total debt. The House will appreciate that local authorities have been going through a difficult phase in the matter of borrowing, but we do not expect this to lead to any serious interference in the programme for the planned reduction in the excess temporary debt over a period.
  Mr. Temple: The hon. and learned Member has given a figure of 19 per cent. Is that figure comparable with the figure of 15 per cent. which was extant in 1963?
  Mr. MacDermot: Yes. The 15 per cent. figure is now 19 per cent. I was also asked, by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) what proportion of the funds made available to local authorities came from abroad. That is a question which it is not possible to answer. The question was asked in the last debate. The reason is that the Exchequer operates in a variety of ways from a variety of sources.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order to read picture books unless they are associated with the immediate business of the House.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: If I am the hon. Member to whom you are referring, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that I was looking at the Martin-Buchanan Report on the redevelopment of Whitehall for the
  1300
  Ministry of Public Building and Works, which I thought might help me to understand the debate?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's explanation does not impress me.
  Mr. MacDermot: It is not possible to identify the origin of particular issues from the Consolidated Fund for this purpose, or of some of their other sources of finance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford East (Mr. Frank Allaun), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes), spoke from his great knowledge and ability about the question in particular of housing finance and the problems which local authorities have in connection with it. They asked whether it was not possible to use the machinery of the Board by way of special lower interest rate loans for housing purposes to meet this problem.
  In general, we have done what we feel was reasonable and possible in the circumstances to help local authorities, through the machinery of the Board, but the House will realise that there is a limit to the rate by which access to the Board can be increased. What we have done is, first, that since my right hon. Friend found it necessary to raise the Bank Rate local authorities have been assisted to meet that situation by the fixing of a rate for their quota loans. The result was that the difference between the quota rate and the last resort rate widened.
  In addition, he has implemented the policy, which was already adumbrated in the previous White Paper, of increasing the general access for local authorities to 30 per cent. of their total borrowing in place of the previous 20 per cent. He also introduced the £100,000 limit in place of the £50,000 limit, making it effective as from 1st April, 1964. Then, as he announced in his Budget speech, he has made special further arrangements to assist local authorities in the particularly hard-pressed areas. These arrangements, of which I have given further details tonight, are that access up to 40 per cent. of their long-term borrowing has now been granted to four regions.
  Bearing in mind our economic situation and the point which has been rightly

  1301
  stressed by the hon. Member for the City of Chester—the effect of our local authority financing programme upon opinion abroad, which has an influence on balance of payments problems—I hope that the House will agree that these are substantial measures which have been taken by my right hon. Friend to assist the local authorities. While, in these circumstances, we certainly do not feel that it is possible to do any more by the machinery of interest rates to help local authorities, it is, of course, accepted that the problem of housing and housing finance is a special one. As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government is reviewing the arrangements for local authority housing finance, but the House will not expect me, in a debate on a Bill of this nature, to try to anticipate in any way what his conclusions may be.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden)—
  Mr. Peter Walker: The hon and learned Gentleman has stated that, in these special areas, the rate will be raised to 40 per cent. Did not the Chancellor say 50 per cent. in his Budget speech?
  Mr. MacDermot: I quoted what my right hon. Friend said. He said "up to 50 per cent.", in particular areas or perhaps in entire regions. In other words, he left open the question of how it would be dealt with, and he indicated the sum of money which would be available for this purpose—I think that the figure was £40 million—and, on looking into it and finding the difficulties there would be in trying to distinguish fairly as between the needs of smaller areas, he decided that the best and fairest way was to make this facility available to the four regions I have mentioned at a rate of 40 per cent.
  Mr. Temple: This is an extremely relevant point. The hon. and learned Gentleman is constantly referring to a figure of 30 per cent., but in the last Public Works Loans Board instructions to local authorities, the quota figure is quoted as three-sevenths of the total borrowings effected in 1965–66. This is much higher than 30 per cent. How does he reconcile this with the 30 per cent. given in the instruction of 30th March?
  Mr. MacDermot: I should have to seek instructions to answer that point, because I am not familiar with the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby paid a tribute, in which I should like to join, to the valiant work of the local authority treasurers in the work with which they have been contending in recent years. I thank him also for the welcome which he and other of my hon. Friends gave to the announcement of assistance for the four regions. He asked me what estimate we had made for the coming year of the amounts which would be made available to local authorities through the Public Works Loans Board. Perhaps I could set that in its proper context of their borrowing. In the current financial year, it is estimated that the local authorities will need to borrow more than £1,600 million. That answers one of the questions put by the hon. Member for the City of Chester. This would be in order both to finance new capital expenditure and to refinance maturing long term debt.
  In addition, there is a total of over £1,800 million of temporary debt to be refinanced. The figure of £1,600 million quoted by the hon. Member was for England and Wales alone. I would stress the fact and remind my hon. Friends—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. R. W. Brown), who was arguing, in effect that we should allow local authorities complete access for all their borrowing to the Board—that, from the point of view of monetary management, it would be quite impracticable suddenly to transfer the whole of this to the Exchequer. Nevertheless, local authorities are now able to borrow substantial sums from the Exchequer through the Board. It is estimated that the figure for this year will be £470 million. In order that there shall be no misunderstanding, I should make clear that that is effectively the same figure as the one given my my right hon. Friend in his Budget speech of net Exchequer loans to local authorities of £360 million. The reconciliation of those two figures is that the local loans fund has internal resources which amount to £30 million and net repayments from the Fund to the Exchequer amount to £80 million. The figure, for which I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for

  1303
  West Derby, of the estimated total amount to local authorities from the Board is £470 million.
  The hon. Member for City of Chester asked me a number of questions the majority of which I think I have answered in reply to other questions. This Bill is not concerned in itself with the total volume of local authority capital expenditure. The question we are concerned with here is the extent to which the financing of that expenditure which has been approved in other ways is to be through the medium of the Public Works Loans Board. There has been an increase this year of a general 10 per cent. in the access in accordance with the previous policy of an annual increase of 10 per cent. and an additional increase now for the four named regions.
  I was asked by an hon. Friend what would be the rates of interest. I cannot give a precise answer because different rates of interest are charged according to the period of the loan and the method of repayment. Before the 1st April, 1964, all loans were repaid by annuities, but since that date local authorities have had a choice between the annuity basis or repayment on a maturity basis. I can give the current figures. At the present date the interest on quota loans dependant on the length of the period varies between 5⅝ per cent. and 6⅛ per cent. On non-quota loans it varies between 6⅞ per cent. on longer period loans and 7 per cent. on others. The total margin of difference between the quota loans and non-quota loans on the shortest term, that is up to five years, is a difference between 5⅝ and 7 per cent. That gives some indication of the advantage which accrues to local authorities at the moment in borrowing through the Board in respect of their quota loans.
  With these explanations I hope that the House will see fit to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McCann.]
  Committee this day.

SWANSEA (DOCKS AND CARGO HANDLING FACILITIES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McCann.]
12.10 a.m.
Mr. Neil McBride: I wish to raise tonight the question of the docks and general cargo handling facilities at the Port of Swansea. In this connection, on 3rd June last, I asked my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade if he would
"… take steps to publish, for the benefit of exporters, regular information on the capacity available in the various docks throughout the country, and the special facilities which each is able to provide".—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 3rd June, 1965; Vol. 713, c. 247.]
I was not at all pleased with my right hon. Friend's Written Answer, because I believe that, in the wider context, these facilities should be given the widest possible publicity, in the fullest possible detail, so that shippers and others interested may be made aware of the facilities that are available. This is a matter of importance from the country's trading point of view, particularly for Swansea which, since the 17th century, has been one of the major ports of Wales and of the nation as a whole.
At present the Port of Swansea is suffering from a decline in trade at the docks. In the first six months of this year trade at the port slumped by over a third, compared with the first six months of 1964. I believe that if exporters knew the full range of facilities available there more trade would accrue to the port, which would be a good thing for the area. It should be remembered that for very many years Swansea has been the location of the tinplate industry and the main outlet for anthracite, which is mined to the north and north-east of the town.
In a Written Answer today I was informed that in 1938 3,759,023 tons of anthracite was shipped from the port. By 1964 the figure had dropped to 1,641,244 tons, with the addition of 185,889 tons of coastwise shipping. This situation is causing great concern because of the reduction in coal shipments and, in the words of Mr. Bryan Rees, the

1305
district secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union:
"The fall has been particularly marked in coal shipping. In the early part of the year, it was predicted that coal shipments would be in the region of 2¼ million tons this year, but it is now unlikely to exceed 1½ million tons".
The figures prove that much more information should be made known so that shippers and others may know the full extent of the facilities available, including berthage, the sizes of ships which can be accommodated, cranage arrangements and the other vital services which are available.
Many firms are tied to a tradition of shipping from certain major ports. I believe that they would welcome information about alternative major ports, particularly Swansea. One important factor is the excellent labour relations existing in Swansea. The district secretary of the T. and G.W.U. wrote to me saying:
"On industrial relations in the Port of Swansea, it is true to say that our industrial relations is first class and that there is never any trouble as far as stoppages of work are concerned, all our differences are discussed with the Employers at the Local Joint Committee and are resolved amicably. If a dispute does arise, then the procedure is to go to the South Wales Joint Council for determination".
That statement is confirmed on pages 24 and 25 of the April edition of Export, the journal of the Institute of Export. Thus, we have corroboration from both sides of industry about the excellence of labour relations in the port, which is a major factor in the quick turn-round of ships.
As far as facilities are concerned, the largest vessel ever to have used the port was the "Edmund B. Alexandra", a troopship of the United States, 687 ft. long, with a breadth of 74 ft. 3 in., and a draught of 31 ft. 3 in. The largest vessel ever to have dry docked was the "Cape Howe", which was 608 ft. long and 80 ft. broad. The largest tanker to use the port was the "Hyperion", which had a length of 605 ft. 6 in., a breadth of 77 ft. 2 in. and a draught of 32 ft. 4 in. The largest port cargo vessel was the "Wildura"—length 568 ft., breadth 78 ft. 6 in. and draught 32 ft. 3½ in. The largest dry cargo ever handled at the port was 22,185 tons of steel coils for the Steel Company of Wales.
1306
We should also consider the excellent facilities, the fork-lift trucks, all manner of cranage and an excellent floating crane. Then there are the berths in the Queen's Dock which has five deep-sea tanker berths, three coastal tanker berths and three repair berths. The King's Dock has 10 general cargo berths, all for deep-sea ships, three bulk cargo berths, also deep-sea, and five coaling berths. In the Prince of Wales Dock there are four general cargo berths, for coastal and near continental shipping, and three bulk cargo berths, as well as five coaling berths.
These things are all very important and with the elasticity of working and excellent relations between management and labour in connection with the activities I have quoted, it makes excellent reading for Swansea. I have consulted the Chamber of Commerce in Swansea and it is particularly concerned about the decline of traffic in the first six months of this year and says, in relation to coal:
"The position with coal, however, is more obscure and no assurance can be obtained that the drop of 374,628 tons will be recovered let alone built up to the annual figure of two million tons which had been forecast some 18 months ago. This is a disturbing feature as the decision to erect the High Speed Coal Loading Device at Swansea must depend upon the amount of coal passing through the port to justify the expenditure that would be involved in the provision of such an appliance."
There is another and more serious aspect of that which I should like to draw to the attention of my hon. Friend. I would say in regard to general cargo trade that the trend has developed during the last year for liner companies to require greater inducement to call at Swansea than in years past when 500 tons was generally accepted as the inducement. Today, with rising costs, most lines look for 800 to 1,000 tons before they will send their ships to the port, failing which the cargo has to be coasted to Liverpool or some other United Kingdom port. That is two-way handling which would not add to the cheapness of freightage.
Since this is a British Transport Docks Board port, I would point out that charges at Swansea and other South Wales ports have been considerably increased by the Board during the last two years including dues, stevedoring, cranage and like

1307
services. The Chamber of Commerce comments:
"One wonders whether the Board are not gradually pricing the South Wales ports out of existence."
Then again, when we look at the rest of the position, I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the matter of finance for development. A Written Answer today which I had from the Minister of Transport said:
"The British Transport Docks Board's programme for the years 1965 to 1969 includes £14·5 million and £4·5 million for improvements at Hull and Swansea respectively. The extent to which this programme will be implemented remains to be decided."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 163.]
Since both are British Transport Docks Board ports, I should like to know why Hull should get £14·5 million for the extensions while Swansea gets only £4·5 million for improvements. When will implementation take place? What will be the nature of the developments that are contemplated? How much improvement in berthage will take place? Swansea has safe and easy entrance for large types of vessels in the general cargo trade, and can accommodate ships of a draught of up to 29 ft. at all times and of 32 ft. 6 in. at spring tides. Has the financial implementation, when carried out, anything to do with this?
Swansea is a modern port, with a series of docks, well-equipped deep-water quays, transit sheds, warehouses, cranes, dry docks and repair facilities unequalled in the country. There is access to all these facilities and, indeed, with the improvement of road facilities this should be a good outlet for large exports. The port serves as a gateway for this trade and has a great story to tell to all shippers in Britain. Representing, as I do, Swansea, East, where the docks are, I make no apology for mentioning all this.
I believe that the port meets all the criteria of world shipping in general cargo terms. The provision of these adequate facilities needs publicity to focus the attention of exporters and importers, because I believe that if they use ports like this they will add to the country's wealth and to the quick turn-round of ships, and not be tied to the traditional use of the larger ports.
12.22 a.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Stephen Swingler): The port of Swansea, which we are now discussing, is operated by the nationalised British Transport Docks Board, as are all the South Wales ports except Milford Haven. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. McBride) has been extremely assiduous over some time in pressing the claims of Swansea, as is his right and duty. We recognise the importance of what he has said. He has very ably outlined the general picture of the facilities at Swansea and some of the critical factors at the moment, and I do not want to spend any time at all in repeating what he has said.
I very much welcome the publicity he has given by raising this matter on the debate on the Adjournment, albeit at this time of night, and I hope that it will play some part in spreading knowledge of the importance of Swansea as a port. I especially welcome the tribute that has been paid to the port's labour relations. I recognise the need for publicity in these matters, and I shall have more to say about that in a moment.
I am very glad to have the opportunity to speak about the facilities of the port of Swansea, and to say as much as I can, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, to encourage my hon. Friend and his constituents to take a reasonably optimistic view of the future of Swansea as a port.
My hon. Friend is quite rightly anxious about the plans of the British Transport Docks Board for future development and modernisation. Let me say, to begin with that since 1948 when, so to speak, nationalisation took over in Swansea after a period of considerable decline and crisis, about £3 million has been spent on the modernisation of facilities at Swansea and it has paid off. Since that time, contrary to what is often said about nationalisation, especially by hon. Members on the benches opposite who apparently are unable to be present at the moment, the venture under nationalisation has enabled Swansea to be a paying proposition.
My right hon. Friend only this afternoon, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend, told him about the possible future expenditure of an additional £4½ million on the port of Swansea. I must

1309
make it clear that this sum is included in the British Transport Docks Board's programme for the period 1965–69, but it has by no means resolved yet to invest this money, as is true of all its plans and proposals for all the ports which it controls; but it gives some idea of the thinking of the British Transport Docks Board, namely, the fact that it wishes to see further modernisation at Swansea, which it feels has a definite future.
My hon. Friend mentioned particularly the question of coal. A large item in this programme that I would mention is the sum of £1½ to £2 million for high-speed coal handling appliances. At the moment, the British Transport Docks Board is engaged in discussions with the National Coal Board about this matter. I know that my hon. Friend will appreciate that, much as we may wish to see the money spent, we have to be certain that the future traffic in coal is going to justify this substantial expenditure. The outcome of the discussions between the British Transport Docks Board and the National Coal Board will determine what the expenditure will be on coal handling facilities, but, at the moment, we are optimistic about the possibilities in this respect, and trust that Swansea is going to have a very definite future in the handling of coal.
The guidance of the interim plan of the National Ports Council is not yet available as the background to our debate, though we hope that it will be very shortly. What the Council has to say about the future of the South Wales ports in general and Swansea in particular will be of very great relevance to all the matters that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I would ask my hon. Friend to appreciate that it will be for the Docks Board, in the light of the Ports Council's report on its interim national plan for ports all over the country, to formulate the particular plans for Swansea.
We know that there has been a considerable amount of speculation about the effects of other plans upon Swansea. My hon. Friend has not mentioned it tonight, but I did brief myself very carefully on the very interesting speech that he made the other day in the Welsh Grand Committee. Some mention was made there about the possible effects of the recommendations which the Govern-
1310
ment have accepted about iron ore terminals at other ports in. South Wales. It could be—and I say no more than that—that, for example, when Port Talbot is developed, as I am sure it will be, as an iron ore terminal, the closure of the other docks at Port Talbot may be considered and there may be a possibility of transfer of traffic to Swansea.
That is certainly a matter that we have in mind in relation to the decline of trade and traffic that my hon. Friend referred to the other day in his speech—for example, in tinplate. I certainly would not myself expect any decrease in tinplate shipments from Swansea as a result of the building of the iron ore terminal at Port Talbot. Certainly the Ministry of Transport is determined not to jump to any conclusion that the future facilities for handling, for example petroleum products at Port Talbot, referred to in the recent White Paper on the iron ore terminals, would automatically take away any valuable trade from Swansea. I have been given to understand that the oil company concerned has it in mind to handle additional, and not necessarily existing, traffic at Port Talbot—that there will be a net addition to the amount of traffic in petroleum products—and, therefore, that developments in other ports in South Wales would in no way jeopardise the trade in Swansea.
I know that my hon. Friend has been concerned too about the Portbury scheme. My right hon. Friend has the responsibility for considering all possible effects of the recommendations which the National Ports Council may make. Here again we shall take into account very carefully indeed the merits of the port at Swansea, and the need to modernise, develop and expand the facilities of Swansea, in considering any recommendations about Portbury.
I come to the first question raised by my hon. Friend, about publicity. He said that excellent facilities are available at Swansea but that they are not sufficiently known to many manufacturers. I can assure him that the Docks Board is taking action to make sure that the best possible use is made of this port, and it is engaged at the moment in a survey into what makes exporters prefer one port to another. Questionnaires have been sent out by the Docks Board to firms

1311
throughout the country in order to discover, especially for those concerned with exports to South America—to Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, for example—why they use one port in preference to another. The Board is very anxious to gain this information and to promote the maximum use of the ports under its control. Through its contacts in the main centres of industry and commerce it is doing its best to make the facilities of places like Swansea better known. A firm of public relations and advertising consultants is at the present moment advising the Docks Board, and future publicity will be related to individual ports in order to advertise their special merits. There is at the moment a commercial and traffic development officer in South Wales who is maintaining personal contacts locally and also with trading interests further afield.
It is inevitable in this transitional stage that there are many questions that my hon. Friend has raised that I cannot
1312
answer because we are at the moment awaiting the announcement of the recommendations of the National Ports Council, on which the Docks Board will have to base its judgment. But the Docks Board and the Ministry of Transport are well aware that Swansea port has very much to offer, and everything possible will be done to attract extra traffic to it. The management of the Docks Board at the moment is lively and energetic, and is keenly interested in the future of the ports in South Wales generally and in particular in Swansea.
Therefore, there is no ground for pessimism. We are on the eve of great developments and substantial investment in the modernisation of our ports. Very shortly announcements will be made by my right hon. Friend on these matters, and Swansea is one of the ports which will be very seriously considered.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes to One o'clock.

HOSPITALS
  St. Thomas's Hospital (Revised Model)
  St. Thomas's Hospital (Revised Model)
  Adolescent Psychiatric Patients (Accommodation)
  Adolescent Psychiatric Patients (Accommodation)
  Maternity Beds, Lowestoft
  Maternity Beds, Lowestoft
  Fuel Oil Contracts
  Fuel Oil Contracts
  Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth
  Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth
  Transfer of Patients (Central Register)
  Transfer of Patients (Central Register)
  Waiting Lists, Monmouthshire
  Waiting Lists, Monmouthshire
  Psychiatric Facilities, Manchester Region
  Psychiatric Facilities, Manchester Region
  Mentally Subnormal (Siting of New Hospital)
  Mentally Subnormal (Siting of New Hospital)
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service
  Cervical Cancer Screening Service
  New General Hospital, Kingston upon Hull (Pay Beds)
  New General Hospital, Kingston upon Hull (Pay Beds)
  Non-Teaching Hospitals (Designation for Teaching Purposes)
  Non-Teaching Hospitals (Designation for Teaching Purposes)
  King's Lynn (Traffic Congestion)
  King's Lynn (Traffic Congestion)
  St. Thomas's Hospital (Mentally Ill Patients)
  St. Thomas's Hospital (Mentally Ill Patients)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Invalid Tricycles (Design)
  Invalid Tricycles (Design)
  Disabled Ex-Service Man (Supply of Car)
  Disabled Ex-Service Man (Supply of Car)
  Dental Charges (Students)
  Dental Charges (Students)
  Imported Boneless Meat (Sterilisation)
  Imported Boneless Meat (Sterilisation)
  Epilepsy (Report)
  Epilepsy (Report)
  National Health Service (Negotiating Machinery)
  National Health Service (Negotiating Machinery)
  Cigarette Vending Machines
  Cigarette Vending Machines
  Disabled Drivers (Motor Vehicles)
  Disabled Drivers (Motor Vehicles)
  Prescriptions (Carlisle)
  Prescriptions (Carlisle)
  Food Hygiene (Meat Distribution)
  Food Hygiene (Meat Distribution)
  Leprosy
  Leprosy
  Registration Officers
  Registration Officers
  Air Pollution
  Air Pollution
  Proprietary Drugs
  Proprietary Drugs
  National Health Service (Long-Term Development)
  National Health Service (Long-Term Development)
  National Health Service (Staffing)
  National Health Service (Staffing)
  National Health Service (Payment by Patients)
  National Health Service (Payment by Patients)
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Drugs (Quality Control)
  Drugs (Quality Control)
  Uncollected Prescriptions
  Uncollected Prescriptions
  Venereal Disease
  Venereal Disease
  Aliens, Bournemouth and Christchurch Areas
  Aliens, Bournemouth and Christchurch Areas
  Drugs (Inspection and Sampling)
  Drugs (Inspection and Sampling)
  Ambulance Service
  Ambulance Service
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Railwaymen (Productivity Payments)
  Railwaymen (Productivity Payments)
  Industrial Training Act (Grants and Loans)
  Industrial Training Act (Grants and Loans)
  Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States
  Bahrain, Qatar and the Trucial States
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  FOREIGN, DIPLOMATIC AND COMMONWEALTH SERVICES (UNIVERSITY APPLICANTS)
  FOREIGN, DIPLOMATIC AND COMMONWEALTH SERVICES (UNIVERSITY APPLICANTS)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Sir Winston Churchill (Plaque)
  Sir Winston Churchill (Plaque)
  Magnolia Tree, Maidstone
  Magnolia Tree, Maidstone
  Cement Situation, Shropshire
  Cement Situation, Shropshire
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food and Drinks (Cyclamates)
  Food and Drinks (Cyclamates)
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Restricted Document
  Restricted Document
  Air Transport Licensing Board (Appeals)
  Air Transport Licensing Board (Appeals)
  ADMIRALTY HOUSE
  ADMIRALTY HOUSE
  VIETNAM (MINISTER'S VISIT TO HANOI)
  VIETNAM (MINISTER'S VISIT TO HANOI)
RAILWAYS
  Closures (Minister's Decisions)
  Closures (Minister's Decisions)
ROADS
  A.27 (Traffic Signals)
  A.27 (Traffic Signals)
  Traffic Signals, Brighouse
  Traffic Signals, Brighouse
TRANSPORT
  Driving Examiners
  Driving Examiners
  Radio Telephones
  Radio Telephones
SHIPPING
  Docks, Hull and Swansea (Improvements)
  Docks, Hull and Swansea (Improvements)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Graduate Volunteers)
  Voluntary Service Overseas (Graduate Volunteers)
  United Kingdom Students (Training in Commonwealth Countries)
  United Kingdom Students (Training in Commonwealth Countries)
  Swansea (Shipments of Anthracite, Tinplate and Petroleum)
  Swansea (Shipments of Anthracite, Tinplate and Petroleum)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration Officers (Wards of Court)
  Immigration Officers (Wards of Court)
SCOTLAND
  Nautical College, Glasgow
  Nautical College, Glasgow
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, Aden
  Territorial Army Emergency Reserve, Aden
COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS
  Nigeria (European Economic Community)
  Nigeria (European Economic Community)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Men Teachers (Wastage)
  Men Teachers (Wastage)
  Handicapped Children, Portsmouth
  Handicapped Children, Portsmouth
  Strontium 90 (Drinking Water and Human Diet)
  Strontium 90 (Drinking Water and Human Diet)
  Teachers' Pay (Report of Arbitral Body)
  Teachers' Pay (Report of Arbitral Body)
  Venereal Disease (Lectures)
  Venereal Disease (Lectures)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Mortgage Interest (Income Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Income Tax Relief)
  Members of Parliament (Car Allowance Claims)
  Members of Parliament (Car Allowance Claims)
  Public Service Pensions (Review)
  Public Service Pensions (Review)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  South-Eastern Electricity Board (Increased Tariff)
  South-Eastern Electricity Board (Increased Tariff)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1963
  Town and Country Planning General Development Order, 1963
  Clearance Area Compulsory Purchase Order, St. Leonards-on-Sea
  Clearance Area Compulsory Purchase Order, St. Leonards-on-Sea
  Planning Development (Notice of Intentions)
  Planning Development (Notice of Intentions)
HOUSING
  Evictions and Rehousing
  Evictions and Rehousing
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Bolton
  Bolton
  Purton
  Purton
  Bury St. Edmunds
  Bury St. Edmunds
BOARD OF TRADE
  Industrial Development, North Staffordshire
  Industrial Development, North Staffordshire
  Patent Examiners
  Patent Examiners

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester
The Earl of Harewood—Took the Oath.
The Earl of Gowrie—Took the Oath.

ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND EXPORTS
2.36 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have made any study of the problem of engineering standards and whether they are aware of the importance of rationalising standards in so far as exports are concerned.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD SNOW): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of the importance of engineering standards in relation to exports, and have been studying the problem since the time they took office. An inquiry is being made into the extent to which greater standardisation can assist the country's export trade. This inquiry is embracing engineering standards in other countries and the effect of legislation on standards practice.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he feels that these inquiries and studies which have been going on are sufficient? Does he remember that his right honourable friend said in May that the gestation period of three years for British standards was rather too long? What action is now being taken? Are the Government no longer poised for that instant action which the Prime Minister described the Labour Party as being before the Election?
LORD SNOW: My Lords, the Government are poised for instant action on this complex, interesting and extremely important subject. It must sound dull to noble Lords, but actually it is far from dull. The study is proceeding with great speed. It will take a considerable time to get the whole thing finished, as the noble Earl knows, but we shall report from time to time as action becomes possible.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I hope that he will press his right honourable friend to follow up the views which he has already expressed.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, does the noble Lord know how many importing countries have already adpoted the modular dimensions, four inches or ten centimetres? Does the noble Lord know how many of those exist?
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I think I should have to have that question on the Paper, but I will give the noble Lord full information within a few days.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, if the noble Lord would inquire of the Modular Society, I believe that they could give him right away all the information he needs. I happen to be President of the Society.

DESALINATION OF WATER
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are able to report any progress in the feasibility study on the desalination of water undertaken by the Atomic Energy Authority and the firm of Weir Westgarth.]
LORD SNOW: My Lords, a design study for a plant to produce 30 million gallons a day has been completed by the Atomic Energy Authority and Weir Westgarth, Limited. This is many times larger than the biggest desalination plant in operation at present anywhere in the world, and the study has shown that plants of this capacity using multi-flash

449
distillation methods are technically feasible. Further work is necessary, however, and a collaborative programme has been agreed and started between the Atomic Energy Authority and Weir Westgarth.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which is to some extent encouraging. But considering that British industry has been in the vanguard in the manufacture of land-based distillation plant, would he not agree that the sum of about £1½, million which has been set aside for this research is insufficient when compared with the £70 million which the United States are spending? Can the noble Lord say whether there is any overlapping between research in this country and in the United States, or is research to some extent complementary? I should be most grateful if the noble Lord could enlighten me further on this matter.
LORD SNOW: My Lords, we are constantly in touch with the United States in these fields of research, and in fact we are going to the Washington Conference in October. We think the amount which is being spent by Weir Westgarth and the Atomic Energy Authority is for the moment sufficient to keep us in the prominent place which we are now occupying. If it is not enough, then we shall try to obtain more money.
LORD BA RNBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that expenditure to find a solution to the problem of the desalination of water would be a much more justifiable expense than that of space research?
LORD SNOW: My Lords, I cannot answer for the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on this point, but I think that my own opinions are well known.

THE REVIEW OF DEFENCE POLICY
2.40 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when their review of Defence policy will be completed, whether the results of their review will be embodied in a White Paper and, if so, when that White Paper will be published.]
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, the Defence review is a comprehensive study of the cost, capability and commitments of all our Forces. In the past there has been a tendency for these factors to be considered separately, but we intend to keep them under review together as a continuing process. As has been our practice so far, decisions will be announced as and when they are reached, and it may be appropriate to publish White Papers on some decisions.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May straight away say that he is quite wrong in assuming that the factors underlying an effective Defence policy have not been considered together by previous Governments? May I put two supplementary questions to him? In the first place, could he let us know whether there is likely to be a statement made to Parliament before the Recess about the Reserve Forces, in particular so far as the Territorial Army and its future is concerned? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to two circumstantial articles appearing in The Times newspaper to-day, suggesting in categorical terms that the ceiling for the Army was to be reduced to 175,000 men? In view of the fact that the Prime Minister said that any statement arising out of the Defence review will be made to Parliament, and in view of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, assured me during our recent Defence debate that there will be no reduction in our target, can the noble Lord give an assurance that this report is inaccurate?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in regard to the first part of the noble Earl's supplementary question, it is quite possible that what he asks may be so, but I am unable to give him an answer to-day. On the second point, I am grateful to him for raising the question of the articles which have appeared. It is not customary in this House to refer to newspaper speculation, but on this occasion I should like to say that these reports are entirely without foundation. The future level of the ceiling of the Army may of course be subject to the outcome of the Defence review which is still in progress, but no conclusions about the ceiling have been reached, and I wish to emphasise this. The present figure for the Army is 180,000 and that is due to be increased to 181,000 as from January 1, 1966. I should add that the strength of the Army is now within 2 per cent. of the higher figure.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has told us absolutely nothing in his answer, except that at some time, sooner or later, something, with luck, may emerge? May I ask him whether he is not aware that there are many very important decisions which have to be taken? For example, can he let the House know how many projects are in abeyance because of lack of decision about future Defence policy? Again, for example, is the new carrier proceeding according to plan, and will the noble Lord bear in mind that in Defence projects time is money: the more time one spends building a ship, the more expensive it is?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord's first statement is entirely correct, but there will be no luck about it; it will be a deliberate decision. On the second point, I am not in a position to conduct the Defence review at this moment in this House.

LORD STONHAM'S REMARKS ON "CITY SABOTEURS"
2.46 p.m.
Lord CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what date they learnt that the alleged saboteurs in the City, to whom Lord Stonham referred in his speech at Swaffham on July 10, 1965, were delaying the receipt of sums due to them in foreign currency; and on what date the Treasury took the necessary action under Section 24 of the Exchange Control Act, 1947, to bring these delays to an end.]
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in his speech my noble friend was referring to the practice technically known as "leading and lagging". The published figures for the balance of payments in the first quarter of 1965 indicate that there was probably some leading and lagging, adverse to sterling, in the timing of commercial payments. I am advised that before the Treasury can take action under Section 24 of the Exchange Control Act, 1947, firm evidence is required of positive action to delay recovery of a debt.
Lord CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his Answer and ask him whether he is aware that the specific charge that I quote in my Question was made by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and was contained in the Press handout of his speech? Does the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mean by the last part of his Answer that no case at all was known to Her Majesty's Government in which action could have been taken by the Treasury, as it could have been taken if these charges were proved? Does he agree in those circumstances that the charge was wholly without foundation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord had listened to my Answer to his Question, he would have realised that my noble friend was substantially correct and that there had been lagging and leading, and that this had been adverse to sterling. In regard to the second part of his Question as to what action the Treasury could take in this matter, I

453
again made it clear that action can be taken only where there is clear evidence that a company has deliberately refrained from collecting a debt. No doubt a good deal of what has occurred is due to the fact that companies have not pressed for payment, but it has the same results. In those circumstances I am advised that it would not be possible, and indeed I think it would be unwise, to take action under this section.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the section does not apply only to companies but applies also to any individual, and that there is nothing to stop the Treasury, if the Treasury think that a debt is not being collected promptly enough, having the debt transferred to themselves? Does the noble Lord's answer mean that there was no case at all known to Her Majesty's Government in which this section could have been operated? If so, does he think it was right for his noble friend to refer to "saboteurs in the City" when there was no justification for it?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the Treasury have powers to collect information and to take any necessary action. At the present moment, the Government think that it would be wrong to set in motion considerable examination of public books and papers and letters in this matter, but my noble friend was right, in that there has been leading and lagging which is adverse to sterling. My noble friend used the phrase "saboteurs in the City", by which I presume he meant those people who were failing to take action in the national interest.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the implication of this Question is totally misleading? Is he aware that a large number of the decisions which determine the rate of repatriation of foreign currency to this country are entirely discretionary?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Lord, in replying to his noble friend, to recommend him to read the section of the Act to which I have drawn attention?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, was out of order in that matter. My noble friend should remember that at the present
454
moment we wish the fullest co-operation of all, whether they be companies or individuals, to help in this matter of the balance of payments. That is what the Government wish, and that is one of the reasons why we do not wish to bring Section 24 into immediate effect.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the speech which is the subject of this Question was made in my home town before a very large audience, none of whom took exception to the speech made by my noble friend, and could the noble Lord who raised this Question now lay his hand on his heart and declare that since last October the City has always given full support to Her Majesty's Government?
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, would it not be better if Her Majesty's Government were to censor in advance irresponsible statements made by junior Ministers?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think that many people in the political field are becoming a little bit thin-skinned. If some took exception to the speech of my noble friend, perhaps they will understand the exception that we took to some speeches made last week-end.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I make it clear once more to the noble Lord that I take no exception whatsoever to this speech? I merely want to discover what, if anything, it meant. May I ask this final question? When the noble Lord says he has evidence of this practice, may I ask him whether there is one single example that Her Majesty's Government can quote where a "saboteur in the City" has delayed claiming the sums due to him in foreign currency?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord looks at the answers I have given. He will see that there is clear evidence that there have been delays. At the present stage Her Majesty's Government do not think it right to bring into force Section 24; it is a very formidable section, and they are reluctant to do so.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether this is another example of what appears to be a habit on the part of members of the Government, that what

455
they say has little relation to what they mean?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, that may be correct in the view of the noble Lord.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 my noble friend Lord Mitchison will be making a Statement on the development of Whitehall.
Perhaps I might also remind the House that Dinners will be available this evening and also to-morrow. I hope that, in view of the large number of speakers, the House will feel that we should proceed with our debate to-day without a break for Dinner.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A; read 1a.
SEVERN BRIDGE TOLLS BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 44A; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
PROTECTION OF BIRDS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order) an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
COMPULSORY PURCHASE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NEW TOWNS BILL [H.L.]
House in Committee (on Recommitment) (according to Order).
House resumed; Bill reported without further amendment; Report received.

MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL
2.58 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is an extremely simple Bill and it will require very little exposition. I think I may take it that the substance of it is already familiar to every Member of your Lordships' House. The main effect of this Bill is to provide that an automatic sentence of life imprisonment shall follow upon any conviction for murder. The later clauses of the Bill provide that murders committed by members of the Armed Forces shall be in like case with those committed by civilians; and that, as at present, in the event of a murder being committed by a young person under 18, that person shall be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure in such place and for such time as the Secretary of State shall determine. The final clause of the Bill provides that the Bill shall remain in operation for only five years unless an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament shall otherwise determine. Those are all the observations that I think I need to make in explanation of the contents of the Bill.
Before I deal with the main arguments in support of the Bill, there are one or two things I would say by way of preliminary observations. I would say first that I am very well aware that there are grave moral issues involved in the principle of this Bill, and if I say very little about the moral issues it is not because I underestimate their force but because I hope that in the subsequent debate there are those whose views on moral questions will command greater respect than I would venture to claim in this House for my own. I wish also to

457
make a certain assumption. I wish to assume—I am sure that your Lordships will endorse the assumption—that there is no civilised person (and that must include every Member of your Lordships' House) who can contemplate taking the life of another human being in cold blood without deep repugnance. I shall assume that we are all united in our respect for life, and in our desire to preserve the sanctity of life; and that the only thing that can possibly divide us to-day is a difference of opinion as to how best this may be achieved—as to whether the protection of the life and lives of the public may demand that, on occasion, some individual life should be deliberately sacrificed. If that assumption is not justified, I am sure that I shall be made well aware of the fact; but I think I may take it that that is an extremely unlikely contingency.
Thirdly, I should like to remind the House that notwithstanding the Title of this Bill, and notwithstanding the fact that during this debate we shall be concerned, I am sure, almost exclusively with the efficacy of the death penalty, this is not a Bill for the abolition of the death penalty. This is a Bill for the abolition of those exceptions to the rule that the sentence for murder is life imprisonment. It is a Bill for the abolition of those exceptions which were contained in the Homicide Act 1957.
It is, I think, not without significance that the opening words of this Bill and the opening words of the relevant section of the Homicide Act read much the same. This Bill opens with the words:
"No person shall suffer death for murder ".
Section 7 of the Homicide Act opens with the words:
"No person shall be liable to suffer death for murder in any case not falling within the subsequent sections."
Your Lordships will remember what those exceptions are. Capital murder at present is murder committed in furtherance of theft; capital murder is murder committed when resisting arrest, or resisting the assistance of some person who is helping in arrest; capital murder consists in the murder of a police officer or the murder of a prison officer; and capital murder is also any second or repeated
458
murder. Theft, shooting, resisting arrest, murder of a police officer, murder of a prison officer and repeated murders are the exceptions with which your Lordships are concerned to-day.
The Act of 1957 came as a compromise, and your Lordships will be aware of the history in this matter. This is the third occasion since the end of the war on which a Bill or a measure either suspending or totally abolishing the death penalty has come before your Lordships' House after having been passed in another place; and it has been passed in another place, as your Lordships will recall, always on a free vote, and on occasions when the predominant political colour of that place has been different from today's. It has been passed when the predominant political colour has been Conservative and also when the predominant political colour has been Labour. I repeat, this is the third occasion on which the question of total abolition or suspension has been before your Lordships' House. On each of the previous occasions your Lordships have rejected the measure, just as you rejected an earlier compromise before the 1957 Act.
That action is, after all, part of a longstanding tradition. For more than a hundred years now your Lordships have been wont to cry, "Woe, woe!" on every occasion when it has been proposed to remove the death penalty for serious crimes. Between 1800 and 1818 your Lordships rejected six times a Bill for the abolition of the death penalty for the crime of shoplifting. There is a great deal of shoplifting now. Whether there is more or less than there was in the second decade of the 19th century I should not like to say; but I venture to suggest that your Lordships would be extremely reluctant to give even a hearing to a measure for re-enacting the death penalty for shoplifting in this day and age. But I think that there are signs that the Cassandra-like rôle that your Lordships have so long favoured is now felt by many of you to be altogether unbecoming, and that there is a quite definite change of mood. The new rôle is to consider whether the prophecies of woe which have so long been uttered on every measure for the reduction of penalties for crime, have been justified.

459
I think one may say that the particular compromise which was adopted in 1957 has been a disastrous failure. It has produced not justice but anomalies. If a man sets out to bludgeon his wife to death and does the job ineffectively, and then goes for a gun and shoots her to finish the job, the murder becomes capital. Indeed, it might even be said that the 1957 Homicide Act in principle reenacted the death penalty for theft, for if a man commits a murder and, having killed his victim, takes 6d. from his pocket, the murder is changed from one not liable to the death penalty to one which is in fact capital. The Homicide Act does not enact the death penalty for the poisoner, for the sex murderer, for the murderer who attacks small children. It is confined to the peculiar list of exceptions to which I directed your Lordships' attention just now.
I think it is quite clear that the intention in those exceptions was to secure that the professional criminal, particularly the professional robber, would be the person whose crime would attract the death penalty. But, in point of fact, what has happened has been that many of those who have suffered death as a result of this Act have been men who could not possibly have been described as professional criminals. No one, of course, can say how many professional criminals have, by fear of the death penalty, been deterred from using firearms in the course of their robberies. But what we do know is a good deal about many of the people who have in fact been put to death in this attempt to deter the professional criminal.
It has led to the hanging of the college lecturer, aged 33, who murdered a girl and her boy friend in a passion of sexual jealousy. He could not possibly have been called a professional; he had one previous conviction, nine years earlier, for a homosexual offence. It has led to the putting to death of a man of 32 who became involved in a gang fight in rather dubious circumstances, a man who was not a professional criminal, as is evidenced by the fact that he had one finding of guilt for larceny at the age of 14. It has led to the putting to death of a man of 20 who found himself suddenly short of money, went and did a bur
460
glary, his first burglary, panicked, and beat his victim to death. He had one previous conviction for larceny and forgery. None of these could possibly be described as professional criminals. I have the names of these and other cases, but I do not like to quote names in your Lordships' House, though I will gladly give them to any noble Lord who would like to have them. As it seems to me, what we have done is to hang one class of murderer in order to deter a quite different class. I can only say that, in my view, that comes dangerously near to human sacrifice.
I think that it will be common ground among many that the compromise has not worked. Indeed, it was the considered view of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment in 1953 that no compromise could be worked out which would not produce similar injustices and anomalies. Let me quote to the House what the Royal Commission said—and they started, as they said, with a great determination to find that compromise was possible:
"We began our inquiry with a determination to succeed where so many have failed, and to discover some effective method of classifying murderers so as to confine the death penalty to the more heinous. … We conclude with regret that the object of our quest is chimerical and that it must be abandoned."
Perhaps we could get some light on the difficult questions involved here by looking at experience in other countries. There is plenty of it, because certainly in Europe and in the British Commonwealth the death penalty has now become the exception rather than the rule. There is no death penalty in Austria, Denmark, Finland, Western Germany, Holland, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, New Zealand and in ten American States. I do not think your Lordships wish me to prolong the list further, though it is not complete. I should perhaps make it quite precise that I am speaking of death penalty for murder, which is all that this Bill is concerned with.
Wherever the death penalty has been abolished evidence has been sought as to the effect of this upon the murder rate. I think that we cannot get more

461
convincing evidence than is to be found in the United Nations Report on this subject, which was published three years ago. After an exhaustive survey of those States which had abolished the death penalty the conclusion was that
" … all the information available appears to confirm that removal has in fact never been followed by a notable rise in the incidence of the crime no longer punishable by death."
The before-and-after argument is always very tricky because circumstances change. I think that possibly a better argument, and better evidence, is to be derived from Federal States such as the United States of America and Australia, where neighbouring States of like geographical and cultural situation have in the one case a death penalty and in the other case no death penalty.
I should like to refer your Lordships to the exhaustive inquiry which was made by Professor Sellin, referred to in the evidence which he gave to the Royal Commission. Professor Sellin studied the fluctuations of the murder rate over a number of years in neighbouring and similar States within Federations, as well as many countries of Europe, where the death penalty had been abolished in some cases and retained in others. I do not have time to survey these investigations at all fully, but I should like to quote to your Lordships sonic of the results which emerged from the latest group of Professor Sellin's investigations. One starts by comparing the State of Maine with the State of New Hampshire, Maine with no death penalty, New Hampshire with a death penalty. In Maine, where there was no death penalty, the rate of homicides per 100,000 of population was 70 per cent. higher than in New Hamsphire, where the death penalty was retained. The experience in the same year in Rhode Island as compared with that in Connecticut was the same—59 per cent. higher where there was no death penalty. Your Lordships will begin to draw the conclusion that it is very dangerous to abolish capital punishment. But immediately one goes further and finds the reverse situation in even higher degree in a number of other neighbouring or culturally similar States.
In Wisconsin, with no death penalty, one finds that the rate was 55 per cent. lower than in Iowa which then had the
462
death penalty—though it has since abolished it. Michigan, as compared with Ohio, a no-death-penalty State, has an advantage of 30 per cent. In Minnesota without a death penalty the advantage is double that of Indiana where the death penalty was retained. And in the two States of North Dakota and South Dakota the death-penalty State has twice the homicide rate of the no-death-penalty State. These are admittedly only figures for a single year, but the investigations on which they were based were averaged over very long periods, and they dealt with States which had abolished the death penalty at different dates. All those investigations show that there are short-term fluctuations in the homicide rate, but that it is impossible to relate them to the presence or absence of a death penalty. Professor Sellin himself concluded that it is impossible to draw any inferences that there is any visible, tangible relationship between a large number of executions, a small number of executions, continuous executions, no executions at all and what happens to the murder rate.
We shall be told, of course, that the public is not ready for this, and that the public is still strongly in favour of the retention of capital punishment. It is, I think, a very unusual argument in your Lordships' House that your Lordships' decision should be governed by the Gallup Poll. But leaving that on one side, it is relevant to remember that there are many things that the public do not apparently appreciate. The public certainly do not visualise the whole hideous business that is involved in the actual process of execution. It may be that, if your Lordships wished to retain the death penalty for certain offences, it would be wise to reintroduce the performance of this act in public, so that the public might know exactly what it is for which they are said to be asking.
The public certainly does not appreciate the very large number of murders for which the present law prohibits the use of the death penalty, nor is the public well appraised of the fact that the capital murderer is often a less dangerous person in his whole life than the non-capital murderer. It is, I think, a very interesting fact, which your Lordships will find in the Home Office pamphlet, Murder, that the non-capital murderers have, on the average, a higher proportion

463
of persons with previous convictions for sex or violence than have the capital murderers. The public certainly does not realise that the average number of men who have been hanged each year since the passing of the Homicide Act is four, that in 1963 two men were hanged, and in 1962 two men were hanged; and that the chance of any given murderer being hanged is now under 1½ per cent. That, surely, cannot be an effective deterrent.
My Lords, of course we run risks. One cannot avoid risks in this world. We know that risks are inherent in the work of the police officer and the prison officer, and we are all profoundly grateful for the courage with which the members of those services face those risks—a courage which on occasions seems almost to pass the bounds of credibility. We know that old ladies like myself living in isolated circumstances run risks, and they are risks which we are well prepared to take, knowing that as yet we still live in a community with a small minority of dangerously unbalanced and irresponsible people. In one sense, your Lordships are being asked to take a very large step, because anything that is concerned even with a single human life is a large step. In another sense, you are being asked to take a very small step: you are being asked to reduce the chance that a murderer will be hanged, from a rate of something of the order of 1½ per cent. to zero. There is reason to hope that in this very small step the additional risks that are to be taken will be minimal. And I have already called attention to the fact that capital murderers are by no means necessarily more dangerous, and indeed are often less dangerous, than non-capital murderers.
Most dangerous of all, very often, are those people whose mentality is so grossly disordered that they are not sentenced either to life imprisonment or to death, but are ordered to be detained during Her Majesty's pleasure in Broadmoor or a similar institution. The risks which we now fear will be imposed upon prison officers if the death penalty is abolished are, after all, risks which are run every day by the staff of Broadmoor and similar institutions. I think that the experience of those institutions suggests that some of the fears about those risks are exaggerated, and that very potent safe
464
guards can be taken against them. There are, moreover, risks on the other side. There is the appalling risk, human beings being fallible, that we may hang an innocent man, and in the minds of many of us is a very grave doubt—certainly in two cases in the last twenty years; possibly in more—that this very thing may have happened.
The final argument, and to me perhaps the most convincing of all, is the fact that no one can tell what the life might have been of the man whose days are cut short by the execution of the death penalty. Just as it must lie heavy on our consciences that we may have executed the innocent, so I think it lies heavy on our consciences that we may have deprived another human being of the opportunity of expressing his remorse in the subsequent years of his life. Today I cannot but remember an American friend of mine—he is now a man in his fifties. When he was a youth of 19 he took part in a hideous and motiveless murder of a child. For this he was all but executed. He served thereafter 33 years in prison, and he spent those years in placing his very considerable gifts at the service of the prison authorities, in order that he might express his remorse by helping those less well endowed or less well educated than himself. He offered himself as a guinea-pig for medical experiments. He now lives as a free man and he works as a technical assistant in medical research.
Let us remember, my Lords, that the story of this man is not necessarily a unique story, even if it is an unusual one. None of us can tell how many times it might have been repeated in lives which have been brought to a premature end by execution. Let us not forget that if we hang even two or three men each year we may be depriving a fellow human being of the opportunity to live out his remorse in such a life as this. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
3.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has moved the Second Reading of this Bill with a speech which, with commendable brevity but extremely effectively and clearly, stated its effect. She

465
made out the case for this Bill and she spoke quite clearly, with very great sincerity; and I do not doubt that those who follow her and speak also in support of this Bill will also speak most sincerely. I hope that they, in their turn, will recognise that those who oppose this Bill do so with equal sincerity and out of strong convictions.
I am glad that the noble Baroness did not assert, as was asserted in another place by the sponsor of the Bill, that the question whether we ought to abolish or preserve the death penalty for murder has already been decided. It has not. It will be decided if this Bill is enacted, but to suggest that it was decided by the passing of the Homicide Act 1957, is, in my belief, to misrepresent the position. As I had something to do with the passing of that Act, I should like, if I may, to remind your Lordships of the reasons why it retained the death penalty for certain categories of murder.
The Second Reading of that Bill was moved in another place by my noble friend Lord Tenby, who was then Home Secretary, and I should like to quote two passages from the speech that he made on that occasion. He said:
"We propose to take out of the category of murder those homicides about which opinion has long been uneasy; homicides which are murder only by virtue of the doctrine of constructive malice; homicides by people who, though not insane, are gravely abnormal; homicides under severe provocation by words alone; and homicides in pursuance of a suicide pact."
He went on to say:
"We propose to confine capital punishment, broadly speaking, to murder by professional criminals; murder of the agents of law and order. … murder by shooting or causing an explosion, methods which are peculiarly dangerous and indiscriminate and are associated with gang warfare and political terrorism; and murder by the man who makes a practice of murder."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 560, col. 1148, November 15, 1956.]
What this Bill seeks to do, of course, is to make these categories of murder non-capital offences, and we have to consider and decide whether a case has been made out for doing that.
The noble Baroness criticised the Homicide Act 1957—and it has been much criticised. There are some, I know, who take the view that the law should not be left as it is, and that, rather than
466
leave it as it is, it would be better to have complete abolition. The main ground advanced for this is, I think, that put forward by the noble Baroness; the fact that a particular murder in the non-capital class may be far more heinous than a particular murder in the capital category, and that it is wrong, and not justice, that the non-capital murderer should suffer life imprisonment and the capital murderer be sentenced to death. The noble Lady referred to some cases of persons convicted of capital murder who she says have been executed. I do not propose to refer to any individual cases; but, of course, there is the fact that, even if there is a conviction and sentence to death for capital murder, the Royal prerogative still remains and can be exercised in appropriate cases.
But I come back to this criticism. I do not myself think that that criticism of the existing law leads to the conclusion that the right change to make now would be complete abolition, for that might well prove to be a change for the worse; and it would be a change for the worse if it led to more people being murdered. The noble Lady concluded her speech by a moving passage about the effect of the termination of life by execution, the consequences of bringing a man's life to a premature end by execution. My Lords, those consequences flow every time a murderer commits a murder; and it would be, I submit, a change for the worse if the change were made and led to more people being deprived of their lives.
The noble Lady said that the additional risks of that happening would be minimal. I do not know on what authority she bases that proposition. I do not myself consider that even if only four or five lives are lost as a consequence of this Bill being passed, that loss can be considered minimal.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, will the noble and learned Viscount forgive me for interrupting him? He says that he does not know on what evidence I base this conclusion. I base it on the facts and experience of other countries which I mentioned.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am glad the noble Lady has made that point clear. I did not appreciate that she was basing her statement on the figures she had given

467
from other countries—and I will of course come to them in a moment.
I put this point seriously to your Lordships. Rather than do something which might lead to more loss of innocent lives, might it not be better that the anomaly in sentence in particular cases should be accepted? But, if the law should not be left as it is, it can be argued that the right change to make would be to make non-capital murders capital and to improve the machinery for granting reprieves. That, I believe, was the view of the late Lord Samuel; and it may be that if that course had been taken in 1957 it would have been better. But we are not considering that question to-day. What we have to consider is whether the death sentence should be abolished in the six categories where it is now retained; and the retention of the death penalty in these cases must, as I see it, depend on the penalty being an effective and a unique deterrent. It is a terrible thing to deprive a man of his life by the act of the State: it is equally terrible for any man to take another's life, to commit murder. In my view, the retention of the death penalty for these categories can be justified only if that penalty is effective in deterring people from committing these murders and if no other deterrent is likely to be nearly as effective. If it is a unique and effective deterrent, then I do not think that it is a valid ground for removing it that a particular non-capital murder is more heinous than a particular capital one.
The Homicide Act kept these murders as capital because the Government of the day, in the light of the advice they had received, reached the conclusion that, in relation to these murders, this deterrent was, if I may again quote the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Tenby, "most needed and most effective". I do not think that anything has happened since then which shows that the view taken at that time is wrong, and I would ask: have the present Government received different advice? If so, I hope that we shall be told. I am somewhat astonished at the readiness of some advocates of abolition to discount, if not to disregard, the opinions of those in the battle-line of the war against crime. We pay great attention to the medical advice we receive, and the views of experts (who do
468
not always agree) are treated with respect. But when it comes to the opinions of the police on a matter of this kind, those opinions of people well qualified to speak with authority do not always, it seems to me, have the attention paid to them which is their due. If the view of the police has changed, we ought to be told.
The noble Lady referred in the course of her speech to the small number of executions, and prayed that in aid of her argument. I think it flowed from her argument that it really would not make much real difference to the maintenance of law and order if capital punishment were abolished, since the executions are so small in number. But it seems to me that that argument really misses the point. What we should be concerned with is not the small number of executions—and the smaller the better—but whether the sentence itself, and the possibility of its being passed, is a unique and effective deterrent. Indeed, one could argue that the smallness of the number was evidence of the effectiveness of the deterrent, and that, if the number were large, it would have shown that it was not. But I do not myself think that any such arguments are very convincing.
Nor am I really impressed by the statistics which are so frequently quoted by abolitionists, culled from other countries, to which the noble Lady referred to-day. I ask your Lordships to note that the statistics she quoted were general in character. Conditions in other countries may be very different; but what we are concerned with here is whether the effect of abolition in these six cases would lead, not to a general increase in the crime of murder, non-capital or capital, but to an increase in the number of murders which are now capital.
My Lords, having made these general observations, may I turn to consider, and ask your Lordships to consider, each of the six categories which this Bill seeks to make non-capital? First, there is the murder done in the course of or in furtherance of theft. Although, regrettably, crimes of violence have increased, I believe it is still the case, as it was in 1956, that the professional criminal is deterred by the death penalty from committing murder. It may be, of course, that someone who is not a professional criminal commits a murder which falls into the capital category, as the noble Lady

469
pointed out. The question here is this: in relation to this category, is the professional criminal deterred by the death penalty from committing murder?
Robberies are all too prevalent; bank raids and wage snatches are almost a weekly occurrence. Although violence is sometimes used, it is, I think, the exception and not the rule; and it appears to stop short of murder—at least on most occasions. The professional burglar seldom uses violence. Why is this? The Home Secretary, in the course of his speech on the Third Reading of this Bill, said:
"If a person knew for certain that in the event of his committing a serious crime he would serve at least nine years in prison—if he thought that was a near certainty—it would be the most powerful deterrent one could think of."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 716 (No. 151), col. 388, July 13, 1965.]
My Lords, I think that was a most astonishing statement. I should have thought that most people would agree that the prospect of being deprived of one's life was a much more powerful deterrent than the prospect of at least nine years in prison. Indeed, it would seem that the prospect of a life sentence fails to deter some people from committing murder in the streets with a knife. A case of that was reported in to-day's papers; and your Lordships will doubtless remember the case of the journalist who was stabbed to death when he intervened in something going on in the streets. Yet the Home Secretary says, with all his authority, that serving nine years in prison would be the most powerful deterrent one could think of. I would ask your Lordships—
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt at this point? Surely he did not say that; he did not say that nine years' imprisonment was the most powerful deterrent one could think of.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Indeed he did. I have the passage. I will read it again to your Lordships. It appears in column 388:
"If a person knew for certain that in the event of his committing a serious crime he would serve at least nine years in prison—if he thought that was a near certainty—it would be the most powerful deterrent one could think of."
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: But surely, my Lords, he was talking of the certainty. He was emphasising that point as distinct from the length of the sentence.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, we can each read the Home Secretary's words. I think he was dealing with the certainty and the length of the sentence, with both matters. When you read his speech it becomes absolutely clear that that is so. He goes on to discuss the nine years; and I shall refer to that later.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, both the cases that the noble and learned Viscount mentioned will not have been capital crimes. Apparently the threat of hanging was not a deterrent.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am not sure I followed that intervention. To what cases does the noble Lord refer?
LORD STONHAM: The noble and learned Viscount referred to a case of stabbing; and since that was not in the course of theft that would not be a capital crime.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am afraid that the noble Lord has missed the point I was making about that. I said that the prospect of a life sentence was not a deterrent to people who wished to commit that kind of murder. Those two cases are indicative of that. That is why I quoted those two cases. When the noble Lord looks at Hansard he will see that before I referred to those cases I said: "It would seem that the prospect of a life sentence fails to deter some people from committing murder in the streets with a knife." Of course I realise that those are non-capital murders. It is a life sentence—but that apparently does not deter, or has not deterred. Of course, deterrents do not always deter.
I would ask your Lordships now to consider, if you would, the case of a professional burglar with a long record of crime, or, indeed, of any criminal with a bad record who knows that the next time he is convicted he is certain to get a very long sentence. Supposing that such a burglar or criminal is interrupted in the course of his activities and that the person who comes upon him is the

471
only person who can identify him. Is he likely to be deterred from using violence, and using violence to kill, by the prospect of a sentence which will nearly certainly be of nine years' imprisonment if he is caught and convicted? Is it not likely that he will take the chance of getting away with it altogether by killing?
I hope that those who support this Bill will deal with this, for I should like to hear their arguments for saying that the certainty of nine years' imprisonment is the most powerful deterrent that one could think of for such a criminal. I believe that the death sentence is a unique and effective deterrent for such men and that there is nothing that can replace it adequately. I believe that to remove this penalty would be to increase substantially the risk that more innocent lives would be lost by murder. Those who support this Bill are prepared to run that risk. I must confess that I am not.
The second category of capital murder is murder by shooting or by causing an explosion. The use of firearms is not prevalent in this country, and murder by causing an explosion is a rarity. In this age when crimes of violence are increasing, it is, I think, significant that the use of firearms and the causing of explosions have not become more prevalent. I cannot dissociate this from the retention of the death penalty. In relation to this type, too. I think it is a unique and effective deterrent.
The next two categories of capital murder bear particularly on the maintenance of law and order: murder done to resist or avoid arrest or to effect or assist in an escape from legal custody; the murder of a police officer acting in the exercise of his duty or of a person assisting him. I have no doubt that your Lordships have received, as I have, a memorandum from the Police Federation on this matter. They urge the retention of the death penalty for these categories as a protection for the police. They, too, express the view that the professional criminal is strongly deterred by the fear of capital punishment. I will not take up your Lordships' time by referring in detail—or, indeed, any more—to their memorandum. But I commend it to your Lordships as worthy of serious attention. There are the murders of prison officers.
472
If you remove the death penalty, what real deterrent is there to a man already serving a sentence for life for murder or a very long sentence of imprisonment?
The final category is conviction for two or more murders. Surely there must be some deterrent to deter a man who has killed once from killing again. It is no deterrent to sentence him to life imprisonment twice. I do not like—none of us likes—capital punishment. I myself, however, do not think that in the present state of our society we can wholly dispense with it, as this Bill proposes. The time may come when we may be able to do so without running an undue risk, but in my belief that time has not yet come. If, after 1956, there had been signs of a lessening of serious crime, of crimes of violence, then I think I should have been willing to make this further step forward towards total abolition. But I cannot think it right to dispense with this deterrent now—this safeguard of the lives of innocent people, of police officers and prison warders.
What is proposed as the alternative? That the judge should be compelled to imprison for life, and that the Home Secretary should be free to decide in each case what time in prison that in fact meant. If all kinds of murder are to be made non-capital, what grounds are there for treating convictions for murder differently from convictions for attempted murder or other serious crimes? But for the advances made in medical science in recent years, it may be that many cases of attempted murder and of grievous bodily harm would have been murder cases. In all cases except murder a judge has power to pass the sentence that he considers appropriate having regard to the gravity of the crime, and the public, while it wishes criminals to be reformed, still, I believe, takes the view that criminals should be punished for their crimes. The sentence a judge passes at the end of a trial can have a very great deterrent effect on others. One instance of that is the heavy sentences passed on young men as the result of the troubles in Notting Hill.
If this Bill passes, a judge will have power to pass what sentence he thinks right, and sentences with a deterrent effect, in all cases except murder cases. I cannot see why in future the powers of a judge should be different just because the

473
conviction is one of murder. If capital punishment is abolished, I think that a judge should have the power to pass a determinate sentence, if he thinks that right. The Home Secretary is, of course, in a better position to know how a prisoner serving a life sentence, or a long sentence, is getting on. That is true. It is equally true in relation to train robbers, spies and all who are sentenced to long terms. The fact that the Home Secretary has this knowledge is no reason for treating those convicted of murder differently from others.
My Lords, I have long been in favour of there being much wider powers to release on licence, for I think that a moment may come when it would be to the advantage of society and of the prisoner if a man could be released on licence, and if that chance is not taken reformation may become impossible. I should like to see the Home Secretary have much wider powers to release on licence than he now has. I think it wrong that he should have no power to do so until two-thirds of a determinate sentence has been served. But I do not think it would be right for such a power to be exercised by the Home Secretary just on his own responsibility. I think there should be a body to which he could refer cases for advice, and I should like this machinery to be available in the case of the long sentences, not just life sentences and for murder.
The Home Secretary, if I may quote him again, has said that he and his successors:
" … would keep murderers in prison as long as necessary to protect society, however long that means and however reluctant we might personally feel if faced with the necessity of keeping any human being incarcerated for a great number of years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 716 (No. 151) col. 388.]
He went on to say that the nine years is
" … round about the time when one may begin to get symptoms to show that the person in prison is beginning to break down." (ibid.)
That is a pretty clear indication that a life sentence for murder would mean about nine years unless the man would, on release on licence, be likely to be a danger to society. Nine years for depriving a policeman of his life, or a prison warder, or the occupier of a dwelling-house. Sentences of more than nine years are given now for crimes less grave
474
than murder. There was a case reported only last week of a sentence of twelve years passed for armed robbery. My Lords, I do not think that this will do. I do not think that this Bill provides a proper alternative to the death sentence, and I have given my reasons for thinking that this is a bad Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount keeps talking about nine years. He knows perfectly well that that is not the sentence in a capital murder case.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I know perfectly well that the sentence passed is a sentence of life imprisonment. There has been controvery about what that means. It does not mean life, and when I kept on talking about nine years I was referring to the nine years mentioned by the Home Secretary. If the noble Lord wishes to quarrel with what I have said, I think that really he should quarrel with the Home Secretary.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to intervene, may I say that a life sentence does in fact mean life, in the sense that if a man is released he is always subject to recall, and some men are recalled.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am fully aware of that and I said nothing to the contrary. I was talking of nine years in prison. That is what it means. That is what the Home Secretary was talking about. He was not talking about its meaning a sentence of nine years. It is a sentence for life. If the noble Lord will look at Hansard to-morrow, he will see that I chose my words very carefully. I argued that that means nine years' imprisonment, and I actually quoted the words of the Home Secretary.
To-morrow each of us will have to decide how to vote. For me the choice lies between voting against the Bill on Second Reading and, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, seeking to amend it. That is one possibility. The other is to allow the Bill to have a Second Reading and then try to amend it during the Committee stage. We must each decide for ourselves. I feel that if I vote for the Second Reading, or do not vote against the Bill, I shall not have done all that I could to prevent the acceptance of the

475
principle of this Bill, that the six categories for murder to which I have referred should be made non-capital. I do not think that any of them should, and so I consider it is my duty, feeling as I do, to record my vote against the Bill.
I find some confirmation for taking this course in the fact that during the many months that this Bill was being considered in another place attempts were made, without success, to preserve the protection for prison warders and police officers. Obviously there is little prospect of the death penalty being agreed to by the Commons for any of these categories. If we reject this Private Member's Bill, it may be reintroduced next Session in the Commons, and if the same Bill is passed in the Commons it will again come to your Lordships. If we amended it then, we could not insist on our Amendments, if the Commons disagreed with them. That is as I understand the effect of the Parliament Acts. If we reject this Bill, for which no mandate can be claimed, I believe that the vast majority of people in the country will welcome our decision. I am sure they do not want police officers, prison warders and householders to be exposed to greater risks than they are at present.
The alternative course is to acquiesce in the Bill's being read a second time and then seek to amend it and, if we are successful, to insist on our Amendments. Then, again, if the same Bill were passed in the Commons next Session, we might amend it again, but then we could not insist on our Amendments. If we take this course, we shall be approving this Bill in principle, approving the principle of abolition for these categories of murder.
During the Second Reading of the Homicide Act in 1956 I said—and I hope that your Lordships will permit me to quote what I said:
"I do not … at present believe that any Government, of whatever complexion, having a proper regard for their duties, can acquiesce in the complete abolition of the death sentence for murder at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 560, col. 1256.]
My Lords, that was my view then. It has not altered, despite Mr. Silverman's assertion that this House would be acting very improperly if it interfered with this Bill now—a statement as impertinent, in
476
seeking to lecture your Lordships, as it is incorrect. This Bill does propose the complete abolition of the death sentence, and, as I think that wrong, I feel that I should have the courage, and that indeed it is my duty, to give expression to my belief by voting against its being read a second time.

REDEVELOPMENT OF WHITE HALL AND PARLIAMENT SQUARE AREAS
3.59 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I took this opportunity to read out, in his own words, a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works in another place today. It was as follows:
"Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Colin Buchanan were appointed in the spring of 1964 as consultants to advise on the redevelopment of the Whitehall area. Their reports are published to-day and are available in the Vote Office".—
Or, I might add, in the Printed Paper Office.
"The Government welcome these reports, and regard them as the broad framework within which future development of the Whitehall and Parliament Square areas should take place. They are in sympathy with the concept of a precinct in and around Parliament Square from which traffic not serving the area should be gradually withdrawn.
"The Government take the view that plans for removing traffic from Parliament Square must be looked at in the context of London traffic as a whole. They are inviting the Greater London Council, in their study of London traffic problems, to give urgent consideration to the proposed riverside road tunnel between the Victoria Embankment and Lambeth Bridge and also to the Horseferry Road route; and then to examine the proposal for a primary road network in Central London.

477
"The Government accept in principle the proposal for a new building for Parliamentary purposes on the Bridge Street site and recognise the need to develop the remainder of the site for Government offices as a necessary part of the redevelopment of the Foreign Office site. Planning will be set in hand as soon as possible. In general, Government building in Whitehall will be planned in accord with the general principles set out by Sir Leslie Martin. Arrangements for execution will be made in the light of the Government's policy of restricting the growth of office employment in London. Further study will be given to the remaining building proposals in the report.
"Implementation of Sir Leslie Martin's plan will not increase the number of civil servants in London. The Government are determined to maintain a policy of dispersing civil servants from London. But economy and efficiency demand that those who must remain in London should be concentrated in Government-owned buildings around Whitehall and ultimately removed from expensive leasehold property scattered in various parts of Central London.
"On behalf of Her Majesty's Government I thank Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan for their imaginative proposals. The redevelopment of this area, which is the heart of the Commonwealth, may not be completed in our generation. It must be governed by economic priorities. But we must now lay down the disciplines within which the development may be carried out."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement in your Lordships' House. I am sure that your Lordships will not expect me to comment at any length on these proposals, quite apart from my desire not to intervene in view of our very important debate this afternoon. I have had only a quick thumb-through this Report, but I should like to say that in that quick thumb-through many of the proposals have struck me as quite admirable. I have in mind what is said about Whitehall and the traffic in Parliament Square, about the
478
need to avoid high buildings in the Whitehall area competing with the Abbey and with this Palace, and also the desire expressed in the Report to make no change in the architectural layout of the Palace of Westminster. All this struck me as quite admirable, though, in passing, I must say that I was a little surprised to hear the sentence in the Statement, which reads:
"The implementation of Sir Leslie Martin's plan will not increase the number of civil servants in London."
Having heard noble Lords opposite, when they were in opposition, pressing for a greater reduction in the number of civil servants in London, I think that seems a considerable watering down of their view.
That said, I should like to put three quick questions to the noble Lord. First, is it their intention to rebuild the existing Foreign Office building, a matter about which my noble friend Lord Bossom asked me on many occasions? Secondly, I gather that models have been prepared by the two consultants: is there any chance of their being made available for Members of the House to see? This is a very important subject. It is one of great concern to all of us. It is one on which your Lordships on many occasions have expressed your views, and I should hope that we may be able to debate it after the Recess. I hope the noble Lord will confirm that that will be agreeable to the Government.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his comments, which on the whole were friendly and constructive—except when he intimated that the Government's proposals would not make any difference to the number of civil servants required in London. That is not the case, as the Statement made clear. It is a question of bringing people in from outer London. If I may make a short comment, a Government which means to do something occasionally requires rather more help in doing it. Beyond that, noble Lords may wish to know that there will be a meeting at 5.30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 27, in Westminster Hall, when my right honourable friend will take the Chair and Sir Leslie Martin will expound his own Report. Perhaps it would be better, in view of the urgency of other matters to-day, if I

479
left any further comments to be dealt with then.
LORD REA: My Lords, despite the urgency of other matters, this is a most important question and I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, for his Statement and to congratulate Sir Leslie Martin and Professor Buchanan on this remarkable-looking Report, which few of us have had an opportunity of seeing. My only regret is this: I personally have pressed this matter in your Lordships' House for at least fifteen years, and I think that these matters could have been completed in our generation, if only they had been started in the time of the generation before. I believe that a large opportunity was missed in that stretch of very ugly buildings between Lambeth Bridge and Vauxhall Bridge, on the other side of the river, on which the Government could have made a wonderful terrace of Government offices. However, it is no use crying over spilt milk. As one who has lived in this area for fifty years, I welcome the suggestion that traffic should virtually be abolished from the lovely old village of Westminster, which surrounds the Abbey and stretches to your Lordships' House and up at least as far as College Street. May I wish the Minister and his planners the best of good fortune?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, on behalf of all concerned? I personally think it is a magnificent Report.
LORD BOSSOM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for the Statement. May I make a suggestion, based on a worldwide experience? Architecture is not the possession of any one man. Competition has developed to such an extent that some architects have improved on what was thought to be perfect. Will the Government give consideration to holding a proper competition for this area, before they make a final decision?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, this is an early stage for that matter, but, of course, the comments of the noble Lord will be brought to the notice of my right honourable friend.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that extreme distress will be caused by the announcement of the destruction of the
480
Foreign Office? May I ask whether it would not be possible, as has been suggested, to move civil servants out of the Whitehall area and so make the Foreign Office still workable?
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I think I must say to my noble friend that all relevant considerations have been borne in mind, not only by Sir Leslie Martin and those who assisted him, but also by my right honourable friend and other members of the Government who have had to consider the Report. Perhaps we could go into more detail about the fate of the Foreign Office at the meeting which I announced and which I hope my noble friend will be kind enough to attend.

MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL
4.9 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I fully appreciate that there are many of your Lordships who wish to take part in this debate and therefore I will be brief. I suppose it is probably true that no one, perforce and not by choice, has seen more of the many types of murder and of the circumstances in which they are committed than the holder of my office. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard would agree. For this simple reason: that nearly every murderer, certainly every capital murderer, appeals to the Court of Criminal Appeal, over which the Lord Chief Justice is the almost constant presider. Therefore, I hope you will bear with me if I express my views—and I am afraid rather strong views—on this proposal for the further abolition of the death penalty.
I may say at once that personally I am in favour of further abolition, and I shall vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. But, at the same time, I shall certainly vote against the Bill finally unless on the Committee stage suitable safeguards are inserted. I am in favour of abolition not, I am afraid, on any moral ground, but merely because of the working of the Homicide Act 1957. I confess, looking back eleven years, that if anybody had then said that I should come out as a

481
full-blooded abolitionist, I should have been surprised. But during that time, and particularly during the last seven years when I have held my present office, I have seen the complete absurdities that are produced, and have been completely disgusted at the result. I will not weary your Lordships with too many of the difficulties, but I will point out one or two.
I suppose that poisoning is the most cold-blooded and deliberate of murders. Yet you do not hang for it. You can poison your wife over a number of months or years, and the most you can get is life imprisonment. But should you marry again, and do it a second time, then you can hang. We all know that the taking of a note or a coin may make all the difference between capital murder and murder. The defence of diminished responsibility has a far and away better chance of succeeding the more brutal the murder; and if it be capital murder then that defence, if it succeeds, will reduce it to manslaughter, and there will be life imprisonment.
I think the complete absurdity is produced by the illustration of the three youths who went out to rob their victim, and, if necessary, to do him grievous bodily harm. One of the youths was killed. He was one month under 18, and could not have been hanged. The second was 23: he had planned the whole robbery, but because he only acted as the look-out man and did not lay a hand on the victim, he could not hang. The third man did, in fact, use some force on the victim, because at one period he pulled him down, and as he was one month over 18 he was liable to the death penalty. I am sure that I have only to mention an illustration of that kind to your Lordships to make you realise how completely disgusted the Judges and the Chief Justice of the day are at the working of the Act. I suppose that Judges, as a body, are looked upon as very reactionary. For my part, I do not think that is true to-day. They sit in court; they see where the shoe pinches; they see where justice does not appear to be done, and when it is not done. I think I can say that all the Judges are quite disgusted at the results produced by the Homicide Act.
If I have taken your Lordships this far with me, what can be done? I suppose there are three alternatives. The first is
482
to seek to amend the Homicide Act 1957. Happily—and I mean happily—I have heard very little suggestion of that. I do not think you can legislate in matters of this sort without producing anomalies. It is surely inherent in trying to divide murders into separate classes that you will get complete absurdities. I venture to think, and indeed hope, that nobody will suggest tinkering with the Homicide Act 1957.
The second alternative, which some, I suppose, would advocate, is to go back to the position before the 1957 Act. I agree that there is something to be said for that suggestion, although personally I do believe that in this world one can ever go back. One must go forward, and the real question is: forward under what conditions and on what terms? But if one did go back, one would certainly, I think, have to consider the whole question of reprieves. I am sure that no one will think that anything I say is intended as a criticism of any Home Secretary in the past: they have all done a wonderful job with the greatest care, and with complete fairness. But I feel certain that each one of them would be the first to say that it was the most unenviable task he had ever had, and I, for one, do not think it is a task which ought to be put on any one being.
Looking to the future, who can say what will move the considerations of the Home Secretary of the day? I do not suggest that it would happen here, but there was a time in New Zealand, before the death penalty was abolished there, when the sentence for murder depended upon which Government was in power when the murder was committed: if it was the one you were hanged; if it was the other you went to prison; and there was just one scat which divided the rival Parties. I feel that one must go forward and adopt the third alternative. New Zealand, I am glad to say, studied our Homicide Act. They spent months trying to devise a draft which would avoid the worst difficulties which we had experienced. They then decided that it was quite impossible, and they firmly abolished the death penalty.
The third alternative is to go forward and to abolish. This is a matter which gives rise to strong feelings, and feelings honestly held on both sides. I suppose the case for the retentionist, as one would

483
expect, has been put as high as it could be put by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. The retentionists will say: "To-day is not the opportune moment to further abolish the death penalty. Look at the rise in crime, and the rise in serious crime". I fully appreciate that position. At the same time, I think it can be said that no time is really opportune. And one must bear in mind that this curious crime of murder is quite different from other crimes. The volume of crimes rises and falls, but, so far as I know, the number of murders in this country remains extraordinarily constant; and, I would add, compared with other countries, and even those where they have abolished the death penalty, they are on a very small scale.
The other argument put forward is the question of hanging being a unique deterrent. I, for one, am satisfied that in a small number of cases it is a deterrent. It is certainly not in the sexual crimes or crimes resulting from grave emotional disturbance; but I believe that there must be cases—nobody can say how many—where the death penalty has been a deterrent. However, we must face the fact that the potency of that deterrent is gravely weakened if out of 190 murderers some 3 are hanged. Then the whole principle that the greatest deterrent is the certainty of punishment goes by the board. But no doubt deterrent it still remains, to some small extent.
I do not propose to enter into the moral issues. Least of all do I want to compare what has happened in other countries. I always find it very difficult to get any solid argument that can be based on either figures or what has happened in other countries. I would base the case for abolition firmly on the ground that this present Act does not work; that we have got ourselves into a mess, and we must either go back or go forward—and I think we should all go forward. Having said that, may I say most emphatically that I think something more than life imprisonment—life imprisonment as it is now understood—must be introduced as a suitable deterrent? I think there may be two views among the Queen's Bench Judges (although they are nearly always unanimous) on the question of abolition. But I am certain that almost to a man they are behind me when I say that if there is to
484
be abolition, then something must be inserted at the Committee stage which will make life imprisonment more of a deterrent.
It has always been said, of course, that a good law is one that commands the support and the respect of the vast majority of people. I myself am quite satisfied that this Bill in its present naked form does not command the support of the vast majority of people, though I think with suitable Amendments it could be made to do so. The real trouble, of course, is that life imprisonment is now considered, not necessarily by Members of your Lordships' House, but by the public generally, to mean eight, nine, or ten years' imprisonment. There is no doubt, I think, that one can assert with confidence that a sentence of fifteen years or more is looked upon by the public as a far more severe penalty. A very good illustration of that is the reaction to the sentences on the train robbers and, perhaps even more so, the reaction to certain sentences on spies where in fact life imprisonment was not an available sentence. I think that something must be done, either by allowing the Judges to impose as an alternative to life imprisonment a long sentence, or in some other way provide a substituted deterrent.
However, even more vital, what one has to bear in mind in considering this so-called eight, nine or ten year average is that the murderers who are now going to be imprisoned for life, if this Bill stands in that form, will include the really dangerous, callous murderers, robbers who do not hesitate to use firearms, the professional criminal who is fighting a war against society and does not hesitate to kill in the course of his profession. Surely, if eight, nine or ten years is the right sentence in the case of an emotionally disturbed man who may, in particular circumstances never likely to recur again, commit a murder, then surely the dangerous professional criminal deserves far more than that nine years average. So, my Lords, I would say that on the Committee stage something should be done in that respect.
May I just say this? The argument, as I understand it, always advanced for allowing murderers out at eight, nine or ten years, is that that is about the limit of endurance of any person imprisoned. That is what is always said. It is said

485
that if they are kept in for longer than that they rot. Believe me, nobody desires—I certainly do not—to keep prisoners imprisoned under those conditions; and if that is the position, the sooner those conditions are altered the better. They do not exist in other countries. I was only too interested to hear the noble Baroness quote a case from America of a prisoner who had spent 33 years in prison (I think I am right) who helped in the prison, who kept up his self-respect, and who became a good citizen when he emerged. How does that compare with the man who is said to rot after 10 years in prison in this country? It really is unforgivable if, in these days of full employment, it is not possible to put prisoners to work, to enable them to earn good wages, to pay for their own keep, and to support their families. It really is a poor state of affairs.
Finally, I think the public would be happier—indeed, I think they would be content—with further abolition of the death penalty if something could be done, as I suggest it should, at the Committee stage, to make life imprisonment more like "life", but under conditions where people would not rot. Certainly the police must be consulted and considered in this matter. But I have every reason to believe that if the police felt that the real thug, the really dangerous man, was going to be kept imprisoned, not for eight or nine years, but for 20 or 30 years, they would, in turn, be reasonably happy. After all, the many police I have talked to do not altogether like being in a privileged position. Rape an old lady, batter her to death with an axe, and you go to prison. But use a knife on a policeman in a scuffle, and you hang. I think that the police would be reasonably happy if something were done to make "life" more like life.
I have detained your Lordships all too long. I shall certainly vote in favour of the Second Reading, but I reserve the right to vote wholly against the Bill unless suitable safeguards are put in at the Committee stage.
4.28 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I find it a great honour to follow my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. I have always listened to him, as all
486
your Lordships do, with the greatest attention. I am a little sad, nevertheless, having to follow him, because I rise to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. Somewhere, not long ago, I read this:
"History, the progress of the human race, is not an exact science; progress is not suspectible of proof like a proposition in Euclid."
Your Lordships may think those words to be not entirely inappropriate to the subject of our debate this afternoon. This is no statistical problem, to be weighed logically or arithmetically, to be solved finally, as in Euclid, by a dogmatic Q.E.D. Moreover, it is not a matter fundamentally affecting the fate of individuals. It is essentially a matter governing the well-being, safety and protection of the community.
Having said that, may I, with very great respect, pay a tribute to the passionate sincerity and near-religious fervour of the many abolitionists among noble Lords and noble Ladies opposite? know well the intense dedication and intensity of purpose which they bring to bear in their determination at any cost to bring about this abolition of the death penalty. Nevertheless, my Lords, I believe that to be utterly wrong, and I want to try and tell your Lordships why. I can never get away from the feeling that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, in the days before he came here to adorn your Lordships' House, when, with his co-abolitionists of the National Campaign for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, he was issuing and distributing those propagandist pamphlets and other literature—and, as one would expect, how brilliantly they were written !—had his sights so firmly aligned on the fate of the malefactor and on saving him from the gallows, that he never did adequate justice to the matter of the security of the public at large.
The abolitionists say, "Do not hang the murderer; put him in prison for a term of years, and then release him". The implementation of this procedure inevitably one day gives him the opportunity of repeating his crime. That, baldly and crudely put, is the case of the abolitionists. Should he be given that opportunity? The abolitionists support their case by quoting from endless tables of statistics, from reports from foreign countries, purporting to show that a murderer seldom, if ever, repeats his

487
crime. They refer to quotations from the Bible, very often replying to quotations which have been given by retentionists on their part, insisting that such texts as "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" and other like passages of Mosaic Law are obsolete, or misunderstood and are not to be taken seriously. So be it! I wonder, however, whether they pause to consider that the Ten Commandments also stem from the Old Testament. Would any abolitionist be rash enough to testify that they, too, are obsolete and of no account? Of course he would not.
My Lords, I do not pray in aid Holy Writ to support the case for the retentionists, but, just to be inconsistent, I will give one example from the New Testament. This is a well-known passage which I seldom hear quoted and which has always seemed to me to transcend all other Bible passages in this connection, and, moreover, to be incapable of misunderstanding. In three out of the four Gospels it is recorded that Our Lord himself, in pronouncing his detestation of those who offended little children, used the words
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he be cast into the depths of the sea".
Will any abolitionist dare to refute such unequivocal words from the lips of the Founder of the Christian religion? The Man without sin, the Man destined to become the victim of the greatest single crime in the history of the world? Remembering that crimes—bestial crimes—against young children are among the most prevalent at the present time, your Lordships may think that that quotation from three separate contemporary witnesses is at least significant, and might be taken as a fairly strong justification of the views of retentionists.
As I have said before in this House, on more than one occasion, in my view a killer should be put to death; that is to say, that any man or woman convicted of murder (and let me say, in parenthesis, that of course the two categories of capital and non-capital murders should be merged forthwith, for the anomalies of this eight-year-old compromise in the Homicide Act are too fantastic to be tolerated any longer); any man or woman found guilty of murder should be hanged.
488
Mercy killings, and outstanding compassionate circumstances, should, of course, be subject to special treatment and consideration. I have never deviated from this opinion. Moreover, I am not only a retentionist; I am an extensionist. Nothing will make me believe that the perpetrators of some of the fiendish crimes of violence that we hear about almost daily should be permitted to continue to consort with the world at large. The unspeakable crimes committed against the old; the abominable iniquities committed against the young; the vile outrages against the weak and the feeble—why should such infamy be allowed to flourish among the normal and peaceable majority of mankind?
Do abolitionists ever stop to consider the number of lives than can be broken and utterly destroyed through the murder of one man? The havoc and misery caused to the victim's family and dependents and close relations and friends? Why should depraved creatures—I will not mention names: like those who were hanged years ago—be kept alive, imprisoned at vast expense to the public purse, spreading corruption with their baleful influence among their close companions in custody, with the opportunity of hatching further diabolical plots against their fellow men? Is this the right way to overcome the crime wave that engulfs the country at the present time? Is it not more sensible to eliminate the forces of evil and pollution that continue to defile the body politic to-day?
I ask abolitionists to shed their mantle of compassion for the criminal and to re-spread that cloak where it is really needed—on the shoulders of the sorrowing families of the victims of violence; on the shoulders of the anxious and frightened parents of young children who are exposed td such dire risks and dangers at the present time; on the shoulders of the elderly and infirm who live in fear of aggression and violence, and sleep uneasily in their beds at night. They should surely be the recipients of the pity and compassion which abolitionists appear so frequently and so generously to extend to the ruthless, relentless, remorseless criminals about whom I have been speaking.
On the subject of deterrents, abolitionists maintain that the existence of capital punishment is no deterrent. They state

489
this with considerable assurance, and they quote statistics to prove their case. I suggest to your Lordships that those statistics prove nothing of the sort. And why? First, because it is not possible for us to know how many murders are prevented, murders which might have been committed if it were not for this threat of the death penalty hanging over the would-be murderer's head. Secondly, while the general incidence of crime increases steadily, the one crime, murder, punishable by death, remains static. Is that not a fairly strong indication of the deterrent value of capital punishment? Thirdly, might it not be even more of a deterrent than it is if it were not for the fact that juries to-day are notoriously unwilling to bring in a verdict of guilty of murder; and even if they do convict, the murderer can almost bank on a reprieve if the death sentence is passed?
But, I do not base my argument by any means solely on the score of the death penalty being a deterrent, deterrent though I firmly believe it to be, but rather on the score of retributive justice and the greatest possible protection for the community at large. In this connection it was interesting to read only yesterday in the Sunday Telegraph these few words:
"Every criminal sentence must have three purposes—retribution, protection of the public and reform."
I commend to your Lordships' attention those priorities.
One final word. The great majority of your Lordships, I take it, believe in an after-life, and that, broadly speaking, in our next existence we shall be given the type of task commensurate with what we have been proved worthy, or unworthy, of in this present mortal life. If indeed life is immortal and our present existence is no more than an anteroom to eternal life, as I believe it to be, then why this horror of death? If death, indeed, is no more than a movement from one room to another, and if in the new room we are able to start again with a clean sheet, is it not at least arguable that the hardened criminal and the assassin, instead of eking out a pretty awful form of existence incarcerated for years in prison, shall be projected into the next world, there to start afresh? There is no cruelty in death, the
490
instantaneous death of execution. Cruelty resides in the barbarities inflicted every day by humans upon each other, by man upon man, and, alas! by man upon the animal world. And I, for one, all through the years, have never doubted what my own decision would be if faced with the choice of passing on to another world or a long, lingering life in captivity. Let there be no mistake: abolitionists who demand imprisonment in place of execution are, in fact, recommending the substitution of a slow death for a quick one.
These are not the vapourings and outpourings of a crusty crotchety old gentleman who has long outlived the Psalmist's alloted span of human life. They are considered opinions which have been maturing over the years. I implore your Lordships to refuse a Second Reading to this Bill. I believe it to be fraught with the gravest danger to the community at large. Your Lordships' House is fully justified in rejecting a Bill for which there was no popular or electoral mandate, in the same way that your Lordships threw out a similar Bill nine years ago. I cannot believe that such an unwise and ill-judged step as the Bill now before your Lordships will ever be taken by the British Parliament and people.
4.44 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, it may be convenient if I intervene at this stage to give an indication of the view taken by the Government on this Bill. It is a Private Member's Bill. There is no Government Whip, and at all stages when decisions are taken, so far as we are concerned, they will be left to a free vote of the House. But the Government support this Bill.
My own views are sufficiently well known. I think my magnum of compassion is perhaps smaller than that of the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn; nevertheless, I am an utterly convinced and life-long abolitionist. But to-day, as the only Home Office Minister in your Lordships' House, I shall express the views of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Minister responsible for the police and prison services, and on whom under the present law rests the awful responsibility of deciding whether another human being shall live or die. It is a

491
view based on experience and responsibility to which, I respectfully submit, your Lordships should give full weight.
I shall direct all my remarks to the Question before the House, That this Bill be read a second time: that is, that we endorse the principle that hanging for murder should be abolished. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger, in her cogent and moving speech, has reminded your Lordships that when the Homicide Act was passed eight years ago Parliament, in effect, endorsed the principle that the death penalty for murder should be abolished for all murders except for certain categories dealt with in that Act. My first point is that the principle of abolition is already accepted and has been operated for eight years in all except a tiny minority of murders.
On one thing I believe we are all agreed, abolitionists and retentionists alike: that the taking of a human life is the ultimate crime which can be neither excused nor condoned, and, according to individual circumstances, it must invite the severest punishment. We do not need to decide that killing is bestial and horrible. It is. What we have to decide is whether it should be answered by another killing; whether outrageous crime should be met by an equally outrageous sentence. One hundred and fifty years ago the death penalty could be exacted for more than 220 offences, and throughout the years reformers who wished to abolish killing for these crimes were met by the argument, which we have twice heard stated to-day, on which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, based his whole case (he informed me just now that he had to leave for a brief period unavoidably), and on which the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, based his speech, the one argument that has gone on for 150 years, namely, the unique quality of capital punishment as a deterrent.
My Lords, is this true? In recent years crime in general has unhappily very greatly increased, but the number of murders each year has remained roughly the same. It could be argued, of course, that the existence of the death penalty is the reason why the murder figures have not increased as have those for other crimes, and certainly I at once acknowledge it: the deterrent argument is the main one that abolitionists must answer.
492
The Home Secretary has the prime duty of protecting the public, and, whatever my personal views, if there were evidence that the death penalty was a uniquely effective deterrent, if it could be conclusively demonstrated that it saved innocent lives, I could not in conscience come before you as a Home Office Minister and ask you to abolish it. There is no such evidence, and the evidence we have suggests that the death penalty makes no difference.
The Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, which closely considered this question and the views of the police and others as to the deterrent value of the death penalty on professional criminals, concluded that the statistics afforded no reliable evidence one way or the other. Since then, under the Homicide Act, we have had our first sustained experience in this country of the effect of abolishing the death penalty for non-capital murders. If hanging is a unique deterrent, one would surely expect the proportion of non-capital murders to have risen since the 1957 Act. Why do the retentionists completely ignore the evidence, not only in other countries but in this country, since 1957?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Would he go further into that argument? Was not the reason that it was not considered a deterrent in non-capital cases that capital punishment was done away with in those cases?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, of course I shall deal fully with that. I am certainly not going to leave the argument unfinished, because I think the arguments are conclusive, and I hope to demonstrate that fact. But as both the Home Secretary and his predecessor pointed out in the Second Reading debate in another place, the proportions of capital and non-capital murders have remained remarkably constant. In the period from January 1, 1952, to March 20, 1957, when the Homicide Act came into force, the annual average percentage of murders that would have been non-capital if the Act had then been in force was 85·6; the corresponding percentage for the period from March 21, 1957, up to the end of last year is 86·5.
LORD DER WENT: So what?
LORD STONHAM: As I say, Lord Dilhorne chooses to ignore this fact, and apparently Lord Derwent does, too, because he said quietly, "So what?" The answer is that it undermines the whole argument of the retentionist. That is "so what".
My Lords, comparisons over a period of twelve years are a reasonable basis for conclusions. The only conclusion we can come to is that abolition of the death penalty has not proved an encouragement to murder. In the circumstances, surely it is for retentionists to prove that the ending by the State of a human life will deter others from committing murder—and we have not heard one syllable of evidence yet to that effect. It has been said that the death penalty should be retained because some sections of the public—and particularly the police and prison officers—feel that it is a deterrent. The Home Secretary is naturally most concerned that police and prison staffs, for whom he has a special responsibility, should not feel that this Bill is removing a real protection, and he certainly pays full regard to their views. He and I have met a deputation from the Police Federation and he also received representatives of the Prison Officers' Association. I need no one to help me bear witness to the dignified restraint with which they presented their case. But while members of both these bodies hold a variety of views on the death penalty, they naturally have a very proper occupational concern about the provisions of this Bill.
If there was any real evidence that it would make their lot more dangerous I would certainly hesitate before recommending your Lordships to support the Motion before the House. But there is none. On the contrary. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger has mentioned an investigation by Professor Sellin. I should like to mention another of his findings. He made a comparison between cities in the United States of America that abolished the death penalty and those that retained it. This revealed that in six abolitionist States during the 35-year period, 1919 to 1954, there were 1·2 fatal attacks on policemen per 100,000 of the population. But in eleven death-penalty States the police were at greater risk because the rate was 1·3. From this it would appear that, if anything, abolition
494
decreases, rather than increases, the risk of fatal assaults on police officers.
I have had a good deal to do with prison officers, both before and since I became a member of the Government, and am convinced that of far greater importance to them than the retention of a barbarous penalty are our plans for the development of their role as social workers, concerned with the rehabilitation of the prisoner, rather than as mere turnkeys. We feel that the alleged possible effects on the prison service of abolishing the death penalty should be weighed against the known consequences of the continuance of all the macabre apparatus of hanging: the rope, the drop and the condemned cell; the sickening, barbarous ritual inside the prison; the morbid groups that gather outside. Surely the aim of our prisons must be to attempt to redeem the life of the offender however heinous his crime.
At the heart of the argument is the belief that there are special categories of murder on which the death penalty has a particularly deterrent impact. But surely the experience of the Homicide Act shows that the introduction of different categories has produced indefensible anomalies offensive to our sense of justice. If your Lordships were in any doubt about that before, I think the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, the Lord Chief Justice—and I quote him as declaring that
"Judges are completely disgusted with the working of the 1957 Act"—
would dispel that doubt. I do not think we could have any more authentic evidence than that.
The 1957 Parliament, with deterrence dominating its collective mind, preserved capital punishment for categories of murders which struck most directly at the preservation of law and order. With what result? Under that Act, and it is the law with which we shall remain saddled if you reject this Bill, a murder in the course of theft, however unpremeditated, attracts the death penalty, whereas the most callous and premeditated murder for revenge does not—unless, of course, the murderer shoots his victim instead of poisoning him. Whatever views may be held by the public on the death penalty, they do not support distinctions such as this. Again, the public do not understand why murder by shooting—arising,

495
say, from domestic stress or jealousy—is capital, whereas the most revolting sexual murder is not.
I pay full regard to all that is said about the professional criminal and all that has been urged in the light of certain recent events, but on any objective assessment of the evidence the conclusion must be that the deterrent effect of capital punishment is not proved, and that any attempt to retain it would create or perpetuate wholly anomalous and unacceptable distinctions between types of murder.
My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger has said that the present law does not result in the hanging only of professional criminals. She mentioned the cases of men whom we have hanged who probably ought not to have been killed, as a means to frighten off those who should. Would any noble Lord, having regard to the hairline divisions between life and death in the 1957 Act, be prepared to say that it was absolutely certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that those men were guilty not only of killing but also of capital murder?
I remember the case of an old ne'er-do-well who killed another elderly down-and-out living in the same house. He was convicted of capital murder and condemned to death. It was one of those sordid little cases which barely rate a paragraph in the newspapers, but as the man was my constituent I studied the evidence. This led me to believe that he was almost certainly guilty of killing but that it was doubtful whether he was guilty of the stealing which attracted the death sentence. I went to see the Home Secretary of the day who recommended a reprieve. The man immediately wrote to both of us, giving his account of the facts, which confirmed what I had surmised. What had happened was that the man who was killed, the victim, had savagely kicked the killer's cat. These two old men fought and one died. It is in such ways that murders happen and it is in a lottery of haphazard rules, under the present law, that the murderer's life depends.
Those of you who have read Tony Parker's book The Plough Boy will be familiar with the story of Michael Davies. He was one of six youths concerned in an affray in which a boy was killed. Five
496
of them received short terms of imprisonment, but Davies was condemned to death. On two separate occasions they moved him out of the condemned cell to make room for other men to be hanged and. then moved him back again. The door to the execution shed was the first thing he saw when he opened his eyes every morning. That boy spent 92 days in the condemned cell watching that door before he was reprieved. I hope we can agree that torture of that kind shall never again be inflicted in Britain. And there is only one way to make sure. There are others of course who were less fortunate. A few weeks ago I had to inform your Lordships that the Home Secretary could not recommend the grant of a posthumous free pardon to Timothy Evans. The principal witnesses were dead and it was not possible to say with certainty, after so many years, whether Evans was guilty or innocent. Yet a number of responsible people, including the late Lord Birkett, became convinced that, had all the information we now have been available at his trial, Evans would not have been convicted. Yet at the time his guilt appeared as manifest as it could possibly be. It was after he was dead, and we could do nothing, that the inconceivable happened. The only way to be sure it does not happen again is to abolish the death penalty.
This Bill provides that life imprisonment shall be the penalty for murder. It is obvious from the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, that it is necessary for me to say what this will mean in practice. As I pointed out in an intervention in the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, a life sentence ends only with the death of the offender, because the prisoner remains subject throughout his life to recall to prison by the Home Secretary. Lord Dilhorne appeared to be under the impression that, in terms of years served, nine years is the present average.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but in the absence of the noble and learned Viscount, he must not be misquoted.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I took down the noble and learned Viscount's words on this. I knew that he would be unavoidably absent, but I shall, of course, need to comment on his speech.
LORD DERWENT: Yes, but you must not misquote him.
LORD STONHAM: I shall look at Hansard to-morrow, but I took down Lord Dilhorne's words, and it must be within the recollection of the House that I am certainly speaking in the sense of his words. It is not the case that nine years is the present average. Nine years is the period served in the past, in an average case, by prisoners who were sentenced to death before the Homicide Act and had their sentences commuted. "Average case" in this context means one in which there were mitigating features, but no compassionate reasons for early release, or, on the other hand, no special circumstances, such as mental instability, requiring longer detention. My right honourable and learned friend has made it clear that, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, the period of detention may well be substantially longer than nine years for persons sentenced under the Homicide Act. Since 1955, 18 prisoners serving life sentences were released after anything between 18 and 20 years, one having been in prison actually 20 years. Allowing for remission, ten years in prison is the equivalent of a 15 years ordinary sentence, and 20 years imprisonment is the equivalent of a 30 years sentence. That is a point which has to be considered when one has regard to the observations of the Lord Chief Justice.
If this Bill becomes law we shall be dealing with a third class of murderers, those whose offence is at present capital and who would until now have been executed. The Home Secretary has explained that some life prisoners may have to be kept in prison for a very long time, perhaps even for the rest of their lives. He has made it clear that he would always regard the protection of the public as the paramount consideration in deciding whether a particular prisoner could safely be released. There is no question about that. He also proposes to follow the practice, which he has already begun, of asking the trial Judge to prepare a memorandum, after he has tried a murderer, setting out any considerations which he thinks should be borne in mind when the times comes, years later, to reconsider the question of the murderer's further detention.
498
Again this has some bearing on the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, who asked whether the conditions in our prisons to-day are suitable for the detention of murderers for very long periods. There are two points. First, do the prisons provide sufficiently secure conditions in which dangerous and violent men can be detained? As your Lordships will be aware, we are at this moment intensively studying the needs of prison security. But I would remind noble Lords that in the first ten years after this Bill is passed there would be only between thirty and forty additional murderers who would have to be kept in prison—additional to to-days level. The Home Office will be able to provide for the detention of this very small number, either in the special units in existing prisons or in the proposed new establishment at Albany which I mentioned to your Lordships last Wednesday. This is the order of the change based on our experience over the last eight years.
The second question is, can we prevent, so far as possible, the mental or physical deterioration of the prisoner in consequence of long confinement? In 1953 the Royal Commission decided that prison conditions had improved and that the risk of deterioration was not such that we should shrink from contemplating an occasional prisoner serving a term of fifteen or twenty years. Since then there has been further improvement, though still not nearly as much as we should like. There is now a great variety of types of prison regime, and we have tinder consideration all those suggestions which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, and others. Last Wednesday my noble Leader gave some indication of our plans for the future. Once again I would remind your Lordships that if you support the Motion that this Bill be read a second time you will be adding to the prison population only the three or four persons a year who might otherwise be condemned to death.
My Lords, it comes down to this. There is no conclusive evidence that the execution of three or four offenders a year has any deterrent effect. If the death penalty is not a deterrent, there cannot possibly be any justification for

499
retaining it. It cannot be justified, as the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, asserted, on the principle of a life for a life, unless there is clear evidence that it has some effect in preventing murders. Nothing less than such evidence would justify the State in taking human life, and there is no such evidence. Therefore, there are no valid grounds for opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. I was a Member of another place in 1948 and in 1956 when, on a free vote, it was decided to end capital punishment. On both occasions your Lordships reversed the decision. In 1948 it was argued that the House of Lords was entitled to do so, to allow time for public opinion to consider the issues. Eight years passed—time enough, one would have thought, for such consideration; but again in 1956 precisely the same argument was used. To-day or to-morrow it is in your Lordships' power to reject for a third time a Commons' decision to abolish the death penalty. But surely, after nine more years of public and Parliamentary controversy, you cannot do so on the ground that further delay is necessary to enable the public to consider the matter.
Moreover, there are important differences between the situation in 1956 and that existing to-day. In 1956 the Government strongly advised the House to reject the Bill: to-day the Government support it. In 1956 the majority in another place was narrow; to-day on both Second and Third Readings it was decisive. In 1956 the allegation that this House on some issues could be dominated by the forces of reaction may have been true; to-day it is not. Therefore it is with confidence, both in my official capacity as a member of the Government, and personally from deep conviction, that I ask your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading and to do so without a Division. Let us go one better than the Commons for once. Legal killing has been "an unconscionable time adying." It is a horrible, brutal, futile, dirty thing. Let us make an end of it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord a question. In his closing sentences, as I understand him, both in his official position as a member of the Government and from a feeling of deep personal conviction, he asks the House
500
to give a Second Reading to this Bill. Does that mean that this is the official policy of the Labour Government?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I made the position perfectly clear. My first sentence was that the Government support this Bill. I have said it twice, and I should have thought that the happenings in another place over the past weeks made it quite clear. I am sorry if the noble Marquess was not here when I began my speech, but I also said that this is a Private Member's Bill and any decisions that are taken on it will be, so far as we are concerned, on a completely free vote.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord puts us in some difficulty. He says that this is a Private Member's Bill, which means that it is not the official policy of the Government, and then he says that it is the official policy of the Government.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, perhaps I may make one point here. I was looking up only this morning the debate of 1956, which was also a debate on a Private Member's Bill, and the noble Marquess will recall that he and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, made it perfectly plain that it was a free vote hut that the Government of the day had a particular view.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I only wanted clarification on this point, which I believe to be important.
5.14 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, it has been my privilege to attend a considerable number of debates in your Lordships' House, and I have had an opportunity to observe that particular value and welcome which attaches to the speech of a noble Lord who is deeply experienced in his subject. Being myself, however, of an age that has less to claim in the way of experience, I can only offer your Lordships some arguments, derived from factual evidence on an important subject, for your Lordships to accept or reject according to their validity.
It does not seem to me proper for a person who argues the case of abolition of capital punishment from evidence to do so without conceding that he would

501
freely reconsider his conclusions should evidence later be discovered that argued against his case, or if subsequent history were to accumulate examples which reduced the validity of those that had influenced his conclusions. In the meantime, however, the proper procedure in this, as in all cases where change is in question, must be to weigh the disadvantages of the institution that exists against the evidence for the dangers of change. The death sentence is a bad punishment. Various principles have been adduced to justify or recommend it, but none of these principles has begun to prove applicable to penal policy in any of the other respects where they would have equal claim. It has proved impossible to organise punishment according to the principle of retaliation, or we should wound those who wounded; or according to a principle of moral culpability, or we should treat equally those who murder and those who attempt to murder; or according to the atrocity of the crime and its consequences—some sort of principle of heinousness—or we should not over a hundred years ago have ceased to hang the insane.
The infringement of these principles has serious practical consequences, as experience under the 1957 Homicide Act has once again shown. In the 1957 Act, murders were expressly not classified according to culpability or heinousness, with the expected result that some non-capital murders have looked very much more odious than others for which men have been hanged. But judged even by its own rationale, which was to make subject to the death penalty those murders which were most likely to be inimical to public order, it has surely not been satisfactory. There was no question or the death penalty for a man who killed a woman with a knife in 1960, when she had told him to get out of her way in the street, or for the perpetrators of the highly brutal and lawless Munally murder. Yet we have seen others hanged who were by no means professional criminals, and some who committed essentially domestic murders and were hanged for the accident of their choice of weapon.
Difficulties of definition and classification belong to this subject in a way that they do to no other. Partly because a penalty so absolute, so categorically un-
502
related to any other, cannot correspond to real absolutes of guilt; partly because, to protect juries and judges from the responsibility of themselves appointing death as a penalty, it is necessary, as it is in no other important case, to describe the penalty for the crime before the criminal is even known; partly because, as we wish to exclude, wholly or partially, from responsibility for their crime certain insane or mentally ill people, we have the hopeless task of trying to define where the line should be drawn between those who are morally responsible and those who are not. The result is a great arbitrariness, offensive alike to sentiment and to logic, and, I submit, responsible for an exceedingly ragged history of justice in our laws of murder.
There are two additional factors that I should like briefly to mention. The irrevocability of the death sentence, next to its barbarousness, is possibly its most admitted defect. But irrevocability represents more than a presumption that it is right to risk a proportion of innocent men for the sake of the other innocent lives that are expected to be saved—but are never evidently saved—by the existence of this deterrent. It also underwrites that unfortunate belief that our institutions can be infallible, because it creates a need for this belief. It creates, also, a Governmental interest not to pursue the truth in the nastiest of all cases, that in which there is doubt of the guilt of an executed man. And, my Lords, if there have been instances where wholly innocent men have been hanged, how much more often must there have been cases where subsequent evidence should have demanded the modification of the extreme penalty? The other point is the object of reform in punishment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, has already referred. It is a boasted tenet of the Christian religion that no man should be thought to be irredeemable. But each time we execute a man we abandon that ambition to reform, and in so far as we abandon it in each individual case we weaken the determination for it in all cases.
As a punishment, the death penalty stands heavily indicted. But it is no part of my contention that any list of the disadvantages of capital punishment could by itself constitute a sufficient argument for its abolition. Far from it.

503
I repeat that these defects must be weighed against the danger of removing it. Let us look at the evidence for this danger. What is this evidence? If the states of America are grouped carefully into culture areas (and the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has referred to a study which Professor Sellin has made of the subject), and if comparisons are made within the area between death penalty and abolitionist States, it is found again and again, in group after group, that the trends of rise and decline in the incidence of homicide over the decades are the same from one State to another: between abolitionist Maine and New Hampshire and Vermont; between abolitionist Michigan and Indiana and Ohio; between abolitionist Rhode Island and Massachusetts and Connecticut; between abolitionist Minnesota, abolitionist Wisconsin and Iowa; between abolitionist North Dakota and Nebraska and South the same: a rise in the homicide rate after the First World War, a high rate in the late 1920's, early 1930's, and a steady decline thereafter. Incidentally, the similarity between the rates of Massachusetts and neighbouring abolitionist Rhode Island is amazing: both high at the same figure in the early 1920's, then steeply falling together to less than half their original rate by 1940.
But examine the States in another way. Certain other States had abolition for some years before they restored the death penalty. Iowa is a striking example of the general pattern in these cases. Capital punishment was abolished there in 1872 and reintroduced in 1878. The annual average, by six-year periods, for murder convictions rose after abolition from 2·6 to 8·8; after reintroduction, it rose again to 13·1. But this it typical of those cases. Missouri, Washington, Oregon and Tennessee all abolished capital punishment in the years before the end of the First World War. In all cases the homicide rate rose after abolition and continued to rise after capital punishment was reintroduced. Perhaps these examples are too ancient. Well, then, take the case of Delaware. Delaware was without the death penalty between 1958
504
and 1961. During the three years of abolition there were 20 per cent. fewer murders than there had been during the preceding three years. In 1960, the Attorney-General had said:
"There is no evidence whatsoever that attacks on the police or prison guards or threats to public safety have increased because of abolishment."
But perhaps the United States have too long diverged from the British tradition to provide persuasive examples. In that case, take New Zealand. New Zealand has had an untidy history of abolition and reintroduction, reintroducing for the last time in 1951 and abolishing again in 1961. There has been an absolute consistency in the murder conviction figures, with no detectable influence of these changes in penal law on their numbers at all. If New Zealand is too distant, take Scandinavia. Again, in no Scandinavian country is there the slightest indication in the figures that the murder rate has been affected by the abolition of the death penalty. Take the case of Sweden—and Sweden is a good example, because its policy on alternative punishment is sufficiently liberal for many retentionists to believe that it provides no deterrent at all. The murder rate in Sweden continued to decline steeply after abolition and then levelled out, and has remained constant at what is generally regarded as the irreducible minimum of murders committed by the irresponsible.
But perhaps evidence from this country is required. Well, there is the evidence—and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has referred to this—that, despite the classification of murder into capital and non-capital categories, since 1957 the rates for murder as between these categories have remained constant. There is the fact that after the Act was passed the proportion of those who killed for gain rose, although this remained a capital offence, while the proportion of those who committed sexual murders fell, although such murders ceased to be a capital offence. Also, there is the astonishing fact that in the 19th century, in all cases where the death penalty was removed from offences to which it had earlier applied, in the periods thereafter there was a decrease of the committals for those offences.

505
It is said that the police will be endangered by the passage of such a Bill as this, and that criminals will be more likely to arm themselves. In the first place, if this had been true in the past, this would have shown up in the murder rates. If police murders had increased, the number of murders as totally recorded would have increased. But some more specific researches have been made, again in America. Two studies were quite recently conducted, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has referred to one of these. He referred to the fact that they had discovered that, since 1919, the abolitionist States had had slightly fewer municipal policemen killed per head than the death penalty States—1·2 per 100,000 as against 1·3 per 100,000. It was found in the case of all States that there had been a high rate from the early '20's until the mid-'30's, and a lower one thereafter. Of the State Police, 24 States showed a recorded total of 77 killings of policemen, of which only six were made in the six abolitionist States; and of these six abolitionist States, four—and these four States alone—were unable to report a single killing.
But perhaps the most interesting feature of these studies was the expressed opinions of the police themselves on the value of the death penalty. Of the abolitionist State police, those of Rhode Island and Michigan declined to commit themselves to an opinion; those of Maine, Wisconsin and Minnesota all said that they disbelieved in capital punishment as a deterrent; and the Chief of the Maine State Police said:
"Both the record and the experience in this State would indicate that the lack of a death penalty in no way influences the element of protection to the police in this State"
Of the municipal police of 240 United States cities, 90 per cent. from those of death penalty States stated that
"they believed in the additional protection afforded to the police by the existence of the death penalty"
From the cities in abolitionist States, 75 per cent. said they did
"not believe that there was any connection between the death penalty and the use of lethal weapons by criminals".
I suggest that this represents, on the one hand, the universal, untested fear of those without experience against, on the other
506
hand, the lessons of the only experience that is relevant.
My Lords, the argument of those who opposed this Bill in another place, of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and of those who throughout the decades have opposed the removal of the death penalty for any and for all offences, has been that its removal will be followed by the commission of crimes by those who were previously deterred by the existence of this unique and awful penalty. Is this conviction a statement of the reason why those who make it are restrained from committing murder? But if this is not the reason why those who express this conviction do not themselves commit murder—if they do not require the death penalty to restrain them—then it is a statement by those who would not commit murder, even if there were not this deterrent, about some people who would. But on what basis do they hypothesise so confidently about people so different from themselves? There must be evidence. But there is none where it might be most expected: there is none in the figures. What is this evidence?
I should like, if your Lordships would bear with me, to ask another question. How is it to be explained that so many capital murders are committed while the death penalty exists? Take the case of the Worthing bank robbery in 1960. There, the murderer certainly was not ignorant of the law, because one hour earlier two of his acquaintances had been hanged. Perhaps he was mentally irresponsible for his action. In that case, he should not have been hanged. But if he was not irresponsible, he was not deterred. There are a hundred such examples. How are they explained? What theory have the retentionists to explain the distinction between those who commit murder, despite the penalty, and those who are deterred from murder by it? Every time it has to be denied that the existence of the death penalty affects the commission of murder, as it has to be in the cases like the one I mentioned of the Worthing bank robbery—and it has to be so denied in face of the fact that the murder rate in death penalty jurisdictions is so often much higher than it is in abolitionist ones; this is true, for example, among the States of America—to that extent it is

507
already admitted that the existence of other factors than the death penalty is responsible for the incidence of murder.
I suggest that these postulates of deterrence made about those who are imagined to need it, by those who patently do not, are, as they have always been proved to be, a fiction. I suggest that the language in which lawyers and legislators still discuss human motivation is disproved and discredited; that the complexities behind human choice and impulse and decision—and our ignorance about them—are quite insufficiently recognised in legislative debate. I suggest that the fact that the death penalty may be imitative in its influence is a fact every bit as valid—and certainly it is as well attested by evidence—as the fact that it may deter. The fact that some mentally-ill people may have been provoked by the death penalty would leave room for the contention that some people may have been deterred; for the murder figures only show the net effect of abolition. I suggest that the truth of these two propositions—on the one hand, that some people may be provoked and, on the other hand, that some people may be deterred—belong to the same order of probability.
My Lords, let us weigh the scales. In the one, all the catalogued deficiencies of an inferior and maleficient punishment; in the other, nothing, precisely nothing—not a scrap of evidence that the death penalty is anything other than totally irrelevant as a determinant of the rate of murder; nothing but an emotional and groundless hypothesis, excusable perhaps in 1820 when there was no evidence, but the parody of an argument to-day. If capital punishment is irrelevant to the incidence of murder, it is irrelevant now—whatever the crime rate; whatever the sincere opinion of the public, the magistrates or the police; whatever the policy is that has already been agree, or not agreed, on the subject of alternative punishment. To preserve it is to preserve an institution objectionable in itself and objectionable in its influence.
Before action is taken to remove what is an irrelevance, the question still arises: Is this an issue on which the opinion of the public is relevant to the decision? To answer this it must be decided: is this a question to which there can be a right
508
and a wrong answer? I suggest that every debate on this issue, every speech in this debate, every argument in every speech, is an implicit proof of the general belief that this is not a matter for personal taste, not a matter for inexplicable personal preference, but one for decision on a comparison of the evidence; in short, that it is believed to be an issue on which there is one of two alternative decisions that is right. This has never been an argument between those who wished to count public preferences and those who insisted that it was a matter for rational decision; it has been a debate between two camps of people who have argued to persuade each other of the superior truth of their respective positions.
In that case, my Lords, perhaps we are to take public opinion as an index of what is right in this matter. But on what is this claim based? If the public is to be presumed to be right on this issue to-day, it is presumed to have been right in Germany in 1958 when there was a poll of 75 per cent. in favour of capital punishment. Is it also to be presumed to have been right in Norway in 1960 when there was a poll of 15 per cent. in favour of capital punishment? Perhaps it will be said that there is a difference between these countries; that capital punishment deters in Germany but not in Norway. But was public opinion also right in Germany in 1952 when only 55 per cent. favoured capital punishment, and again in 1957 when 72 per cent. favoured capital punishment? And in Finland in 1953, when there was a poll of 68 per cent. in favour of capital punishment; and again in Finland in 1960, when there was a poll of 46 per cent.—an actual minority—in favour of capital punishment? There is nothing hearsay about these figures; they are used by M. Ancel, a Justice of the French Supreme Court, in a report he produced in 1952 for the United Nations.
I do not believe that it can be sustained that we should retain capital punishment on the grounds that public opinion is likely to be right. And unless it is argued that the consequences of challenging the preference of the public at this time will themselves be productive of lawlessness or death, then to submit to public preference on the recognition that it is nothing but a preference is to submit to a preference that is

509
either ignorant or barbarous. For among those who cannot plead ignorance of the available data, a vote for retention represents nothing other than a preference—a preference for barbarity over necessity; a preference for the arrogance of immovable personal sentiment over the freedom of reason; a preference for the dangerous conviction that one can fully guard against the possibilities of human error. Such a vote would be one against the humble belief that all human beings and all the institutions they make will always be fallible, and that in this instance the consequences of a system, inevitably grossly imperfect, are grave and continuing injustices for which we are all deeply answerable.
5.36 p.m.
LORD SHAWCROSS: My Lords, my own brief attendances in your Lordships' House have been so infrequent that I feel it something of an impertinence on my part to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Reay, on the very notable speech to which we have listened. He spoke with great sincerity, clarity and cogency; and I am sure it will be the hope of all noble Lords that in future he will make frequent contributions to our discussions.
Those of your Lordships who know me may well expect that I shall speak in support of this Bill, because in the days before the War when I was sometimes concerned with either the prosecution or the defence of persons who were accused on capital charges I made no secret of my belief that capital punishment should be abolished. Indeed, after the War, when I was Attorney General, I was responsible for the first Bill which sought abolition of the penalty altogether. This was subsequently rejected, according to your Lordships' tradition in your Lordships' House, and I had to move the Second Reading of the compromise Bill which we later introduced, very much against my better judgment but in loyalty to the Government of the day to which I belonged, a compromise Bill which, I think, set on foot measures which were really quite intolerable.
All this is a long time ago, and a great many things have happened since then. Crime has greatly increased—the percentage increase each year is really quite frightening—and more skill, more daring
510
and more violence is being displayed in the pursuit of crime. I ask myself, naturally, in approaching this matter whether all this is the result of the system of penalties and legal administration that we have hitherto pursued. In my mind there are two factors which one cannot entirely disregard in this matter. One is, perhaps, causative and the other preventive. On the one hand, there are, I believe, two sections of society (those who have been called "the lilac intelligentsia," coupled with those who find it possible to make good commercial profit out of the business) who are busily engaged in destroying the old standards of honesty and morality and decent behaviour which we ought to be taught when we are young. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is right in thinking—I am not sure—that in this age of cynicism and what passes for satire human life is still regarded with the sanctity which used to be attached to it.
On the other hand, more than ever before, we fall over backwards in order to ensure that guilty men are surrounded with every possible protection against being convicted. The judges only recently have strengthened the Judges' Rules so as to discourage the police still more from questioning suspects and trying to get at the truth. If a police officer nowadays so much as asks for a name and address there will be a bleat from some of these self-appointed protectors of civil liberties that he is exceeding his powers. At the same time we maintain a police force which is quite inadequate in size and inadequately equipped with the modern requirements that police forces need if they are to perform their functions efficiently.
I have emphasised those two matters because I want to say to your Lordships that if I thought for a moment that the death penalty was of the slightest value in conducting the war against crime, a war which at present the criminal is steadily winning, then, hateful though I believe the death penalty to be, I should unhesitatingly vote for its retention. On the contrary, I believe it in fact to be a handicap in the war against crime.
Most of the noble Lords who practise at the Bar were, I think, not usually engaged in the criminal courts. Before I trespassed into the more respectable and

511
more remunerative territory of the commercial courts and the tax courts I had a knock-about kind of practice in the course of which I either prosecuted or defended something between one and two score of people who were accused on capital charges; and, of course, I took some interest in cases in which I was not myself professionally engaged. I have thought about it a good deal since and I thought about it a good deal at the time, and I do not recall a single case in which I felt that the death penalty had served any useful purpose. I recall at least one case—I think two—in which I felt that a man had been wrongfully executed; and l recall three cases in which I was convinced that the juries would have convicted—and rightly convicted—if there had not been a death penalty. The fact is, of course, and it is a very understandable fact, that juries are frightened about the death penalty. Knowing that their verdict will be irretrievable and irreversible, they succeed in giving to the accused the benefit of every fanciful doubt which can be raised; and in consequence I believe that in a number of cases persons who otherwise would have been convicted, and rightly so, of murder have, in fact, been acquitted.
This, I know, is a matter on which on both sides of the House strong opinions will be held. Some of us think that the death penalty is a good thing; some of us believe equally sincerely that it is not. I believe that there is not a shred of evidence, nothing that any respectable lawyer would dream of adducing in the lowest courts in the land, to support the view that the death penalty in the past had any deterrent effect on the rate of murder in this country. Apart from the fact that one-third of those who commit murder immediately follow it by committing suicide themselves, broadly speaking murderers are divided into two classes. There are those who commit their crime in a fit of passion, of rage, of irresponsibility, in which they have no regard whatever to the consequences of what they are doing. On the other hand, there are those who commit their crime as a matter of deliberate calculation, indifferent as to what the penalty may be because they are sure that they are going to escape detection. And, my Lords, very often they are right.
512
One must not argue too much from the particular to the general, but I see that my noble and learned friend Lord Kilmuir is present, and I am reminded that the first case in which I defended a murderer was one in which he prosecuted; and that the last case in which he defended a murderer was one in which I prosecuted. I remember the first case very well. My client was a man, I must say, of somewhat demonstrative temper. He had already been flogged severely with the cat and that had not deterred him. His temper remained equally ill-governed when he came out. In order to indicate his disapproval of the view of one of his friends he proceeded to hit him over the head with a bottle, and the man died. That man was not deterred in the least by the fear of capital punishment, any more than he had been deterred from an act of violence by the cat which was the punishment appropriate in those days. He was the type of murderer who committed his crime in a passion, in a rage, regardless of the consequences.
The last case in which I prosecuted and my noble and learned friend defended was the case of the late Mr. Haigh. He was a man in whose case the defence of insanity was raised. I feel quite sure my noble and learned friend will agree that the time of the court would not have been occupied for a moment with such a defence had it not been that the charge was a capital charge. Haigh was as sane as my noble and learned friend and I were sane at that time. Not only was he sane, he was exceedingly ingenious. He invented a technique of committing murders and dissolving the bodies of his victims in sulphuric acid. He was quite convinced that he would not be detected and in nine cases out of ten he was correct. He was a little conceited: he did it again, and then he was caught and was hanged, and no doubt he richly deserved it.
But, my Lords, retribution is not nowadays usually regarded as an appropriate object of our penal system, and I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, to whose speech, I am sure, we all listened with the greatest respect, for he spoke with the utmost sincerity, that, for my part, I should be content—if the Bishops will permit such a curious abberation from modern theology—to be guided by the

513
advice of St. Paul, that vengeance is the Lord's, He will repay. At any rate, for my part I should not care to have to kill a man simply as a matter of retribution, and what I should not care to do myself I do not think it right to ask someone else to do vicariously on my behalf. So I say that I do not believe that, in general, capital punishment operates as a deterrent.
One must, I think, be a little realistic about this subject, and it is, I venture to suggest to your Lordships, utterly unrealistic to suppose that a man who intends to commit a murder, and who is faced with the certainty of detection and conviction, considers first whether the penalty is death or the penalty is going to be a long (I agree that it should be long) and determinate sentence of imprisonment. Once he is faced with the certainty of detection and conviction, he is not going to decide that he will not murder because the penalty is death, or that he will murder although he is going to be sent to prison for 30 years. That is quite an unrealistic view to take, and I believe that the maintenance of the capital penalty in the belief that that is the result is something which discourages juries from convicting, which degrades warders and prison populations and which has a demoralising effect on the public at large. My Lords, there is one special case about which I must confess that I feel some anxiety and in regard to which I have an open mind. That is the case of the man who has already been convicted for some crime for which he has received a very long sentence, or who has committed a crime for which he is liable to receive a very long sentence. I ask myself whether capital punishment is a deterrent to his shooting or killing his way out, in order to escape arrest or to escape from prison. Is it necessary to retain capital punishment as a protection to warders and police officers against this risk? On this point all I will say is that I shall listen with great interest to what may be said on both sides in regard to this matter during the Committee stage of this Bill. Meanwhile, I shall support its Second Reading.
There remains only one other point to which I wish to refer, and that is the suggestion that there was no mandate for this Bill. The doctrine of mandate is
514
one that is already somewhat discredited, and I think that it applies only to the case where a Bill is introduced as a Government measure. Although the Government are perfectly entitled to advise this House which way it should vote, this is not a Government measure. I agree that it would be totally wrong, in a matter which is one of Party political controversy, to pass through Parliament legislation which does not command the support of the majority of the electorate. It may well be that this Bill does not command the support of the majority of the electorate. As to that, we have some evidence from the Gallup Polls.
But this kind of legislation seems to me to stand in an entirely different category from ordinary political legislation of a Party character. In a matter of this kind, where so much depends on a very careful examination of the facts, an examination which is inevitably impossible for the electorate at large, I think that it is the right of Parliament to examine the facts and, if satisfied on the facts, to give a lead to public opinion. I hope that such a lead will be given by this House in this case. And certainly, if I were here to-morrow—unfortunately, I have to he abroad—should vote, with conviction and with confidence, for the Second Reading of this Bill.
5.53 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I support this Bill, and I believe that most of my noble friends on the Liberal Benches do so, too. I do not propose to follow any of the arguments for or against this Bill. Your Lordships know them all. We have heard them over many years and we shall hear them again to-night, much better expressed than I am likely to do. I want to take, if I may, a rather lighter line—if that is the appropriate word in a debate on hanging. I want to go back to the last time that a Member of your Lordships' House was hanged for murder. I want to take a point on that and make my own feelings known from it.
I notice the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, sitting in his place. It was the fourth Earl Ferrers who was hanged for murder in 1760—the great, great grandfather's great-uncle of the present Earl. He was tried by your Lordships' House, and the Lord High Steward who presided at the trial and who sentenced him to death

515
was my great grandfather's grandfather, Lord Henley. Sir Robert Henley, as he was until the trial, sat on the Woolsack as a commoner. Incidentally, there is no reason why a commoner should not sit on the Woolsack still, because it is technically outside the House. He sat as Lord Keeper of the Great Seal (in fact, he was the last Lord Keeper), and not as Lord Chancellor. And he would have gone on sitting as a commoner, because George II disliked him so much that he would not make him a Peer. Sir Robert Henley had sat as Whig Member of Parliament for Bath for ten years, though the issue of politics was slightly confused in his case, because it stemmed not so much from his Whiggism as from his friendship with Frederick, Prince of Wales, and later with his son, who later became George III, in opposition to his father, George II. So Sir Robert would have continued to sit on the Woolsack as a commoner until the death of George II (which took place, however, later the same year), had it not been that Lord Ferrers committed murder. I need hardly add that Lord Ferrers was a Tory.
Lord Ferrers, of course, had to be tried by his peers, and there had to be someone to preside over the trial. That person would be the Lord High Steward, and in order that Sir Robert Henley could do this he had to be made a Peer and Lord High Steward. Henley was duly made a Peer. When Lord Henley sentenced Lord Ferrers to death, this is what he said:
"It is a happiness resulting from your Lordship's birth and the Constitution of this country that your Lordship is now to be tried by your peers in full Parliament. What greater consolation can be suggested to a person in your unhappy circumstances than to be reminded that you are to be tried by a set of judges whose sagacity and penetration no material circumstances in evidence can escape and whose justice nothing can influence or pervert?"—
He was referring, of course, to your Lordships' House. I think that I detect a certain conceit here—hubris even, though one has to remember the peculiar tone of the 18th century. Nevertheless, the suggestion really is one of overweening conceit, is it not? It is conceit in the face of what we call God. It is the same conception as the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, mentioned just now,
516
about "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord". It is an attempt to take to ourselves something which we ought not to take. It is a suggestion that we are fitted to exact vengeance from someone, our peer or anyone else. Do not forget that hanging is vengeance; it is not a punishment.
Lord Ferrers was so patently "cracked" that nobody to-day would have considered hanging him, of wreaking vengeance upon him. On the day of the execution, the crowds were so great that it took about three hours to take him from the Tower to Tyburn, and it is recorded that he said to the Sheriff, "I suppose it is because they never saw a Lord hanged before". We do not now watch executions. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, suggested that in certain circumstances, to bring us to our senses, it might be a good thing if we did. But the very fact of an execution produces, even provokes, in many of us an ugly frame of mind. What moves me most of all in wanting to see the end of hanging is not so much the damage it does to the murderer but the damage it does to ourselves. It seems to me that the words of Lord Henley, those very hubristic words about the tribunal at the beginning of the trial, and the remark thrown out by Lord Ferrers on the way to execution, suggest that the exaction of the death penalty is an impiety. I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
6.0 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has referred, with a certain degree of feeling, to the curious circumstances which surrounded his predecessor's being made a Peer. Most noble Lords have tucked away somewhere inside them a sneaking pride for the reasons why they or their forbears were created Peers. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, should take such pride in the fact that his ancestor was made a Peer for the main if not the sole purpose of sentencing mine to have his life terminated by the very methods we are now discussing. In his description of history the noble Lord omitted one observation that my forbear made. He insisted on the day of his death upon wearing his wedding clothes, not for any romantic reasons that might quickly jump to your Lordships' minds,

517
but simply because he considered that the day of his marriage and the day of his death were the two unhappiest days of his life. Clearly, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, retains such a grievous conscience for the dastardly deeds which the first illustrious forbear of his did that I, for one, bear him no grudge for his support of this Bill.
But I am bound to say at the outset that I am against this Bill, mainly for one reason: I believe that the presence of capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. I do not propose to produce statistics to substantiate this, because, frankly, statistics with regard to deterrence prove nothing: they neither prove that capital punishment is a deterrent nor that it is not; nor do they prove that its removal will result in an increase or a decrease in the rate of murder. All they show is when as a deterrent it has failed, and never when as a deterrent it has succeeded, which, of course, is the one piece of information that we should all like to know. But because statistics are indeterminate in this, it should not be interpreted that the effects of capital punishment are equally of little consequence. It merely means that the effect cannot be determined by statistics, for, in this instance, statistics, while they may be of interest, prove nothing. Therefore, to my mind, it boils down to one's individual judgment; does one believe capital punishment to be a deterrent or not?
I believe that capital punishment is a deterrent, for one good reason. I believe that people are prepared to pay fines for their wrongdoing; I believe that they are prepared to go to prison and undergo sentences for their wrongdoing; but the one thing that people do not like having is anything happening to their person. It is said that one should not take advantage of this fact. But I do not see this. To my mind, the first and important duty of any Government is to ensure a reasonable and adequate level of public safety; and if capital punishment deters, it stands to reason that its removal will result in people being murdered who otherwise would not be. This applies, of course, only if it is a deterrent. If it is not, then the situation is quite different. But I believe the fact that a person may, as they say, "swing for it" has deterred many a criminal from carrying a gun, for fear of using it in
518
the heat of the moment with fatal results.
It has been argued forcibly this afternoon that the present law is full of anomalies, and that it is manifestly unfair that certain murders should be punishable by death, whereas others are not, and, therefore, that we should accept this Bill as putting them all on the same footing. I find this argument difficult to accept. I can understand those in favour of abolition using this argument; and I can understand those who believe it to be no deterrent using this argument. But I fail utterly to understand those who believe that capital punishment is a deterrent using the argument, and at the same time being prepared to sacrifice what they believe to be a deterrent for the sake of legal tidiness.
The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, had some remarks to make upon this. He said that the present system was intolerable, and that there are a number of courses open to us, including the one that we could go back to the pre-1957 situation. But he added that we cannot go back; we must go forward, and, therefore, we must accept the Bill. While I tremble to involve myself in any form of disagreement with such an eminent person as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, I cannot help wondering whether it does not all depend upon what you mean by "forward". If the acceptance of this Bill might mean an increase in murders—and the noble and learned Lord himself said he was convinced that on occasions capital punishment had deterred—then I consider this to be going backward. It may be forward in the case of penal reform, but it will be backward in the case of public safety. The present law may be full of anomalies; but a person who takes a gun does not before using it stop to consider whether his victim is a particular type of person, or whether he is in the sort of situation that will or will not subject him to a sentence of death. So far as he is concerned, if he murders he may be subjected to capital punishment. That, my Lords, I believe to be a deterrent.
Since we last debated this matter in 1957 I have frequently tried to put my views to the test, and have tried to see whether I could accept the views of those who are in favour of this Bill—because

519
no one likes the idea of hanging. I think that there is much to be said for the so-called Christian and moral outlook that is often put forward by those who favour the Bill. But, equally, let me add that the Christian and moral aspect is not confined to only one side of the argument. Each time I have carried out this test I have reverted to my previous view, because I consider the death penalty to be a deterrent. If one were to know—and I do not mean think or believe, but actually know—that the removal of the death penalty would have no effect upon the potential criminal, then I think I should vote for the Bill. But I just do not believe this to be the case, and I, for one, certainly should not be prepared to take this risk at a time when crimes of violence in which firearms are used have risen greatly. In England and Wales they rose between 1963 and 1964 from 578 to 731; and in a three-months' period, again between 1963 and 1964, in the Metropolitan Police District of London, crimes of violence in which firearms were used rose from 10 to 52.
I hope that your Lordships will have no hesitation in not only debating this Bill quite frankly, but also voting upon it; and I hope your Lordships will vote strongly and firmly against the Bill on account of its being against the public interest and being produced at a time which is totally inappropriate, in view of the increasing numbers of crimes of violence in which firearms are used.
6.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT NORWICH: My Lords, for eleven years I have been plucking up the courage to address your Lordships' House; but the natural trepidation which anyone must feel on rising to make his maiden speech is for me slightly offset this afternoon by my pleasure in being able to participate in a debate so vitally important to all of us as this one. For I believe that this debate cannot fail to bring us one step closer to the day when we shall be able to expunge from the English Statute Book for all time what I believe to be its darkest and most shameful stain.
These are strong words, but I use them advisedly. I abhor the whole concept of the death penalty, first of all because I believe it is morally unjustifiable ever to
520
take in cold blood, unnecessarily, the life of a fellow human being. I can conceive of nothing more totally at variance with Christian morality, which is as I understand it, based on the proposition that no man is beyond redemption. I cannot therefore understand how the retention of the gallows can be reconciled with the Christian conscience.
This same line or argument can be continued on a more practical level. It seems to me that there can be no good punishment which does not contain within itself at least some element of correction. This, by its very definition, the death penalty can never do; it is simply an admission of defeat, of hopelessness and despair. combined also with a vindictiveness and spirit of retribution which, I think we must all agree, bears absolutely no connection or relationship with the standards of justice as we understand them to-day.
But, say those who wish it to be retained, it is nevertheless a vital deterrent. We have discussed this question of deterrence at considerable length this afternoon, and I think we are still up against the same old question: Just whom does it deter? Since the Homicide Act 1957 was passed, one might have expected that anyone wishing to commit or contemplating committing a murder in the future would plan to do so by non-capital methods. If this were the case, one would assume that the incidence of capital murders would fall. It has not done so. A comparison of the murder figures for the past three years and those of a similar period of three years immediately preceding the passing of the 1957 Act—figures which were made public last week in another place—shows that the number of capital murders for those two periods was almost identical. There was no fall-off in their number. Therefore, I deduce, there can have been no deterrence. This same lesson, as we have heard, was brought out even more clearly by the Report of the Gowers Committee when they examined the available figures in nearly all the principal countries of Western Europe, in the Commonwealth and in a great many individual States of the United States of America, and could find not one single set of figures which indicated either that the homicide rate had risen after the abolition of the death penalty, or that it had fallen after the

521
death penalty was reintroduced. So much, then, for deterrence.
My other objection to the system lies in its practical application. It has, I understand, long been held that the responsibility of deciding whether or not a given man was to suffer sentence of death was more than should be inflicted on any individual judge. For this reason, the law took the decision for him. This meant in practice that anyone found guilty of a capital offence could expect one sentence, and one sentence only, the death sentence. This is, I think, a perfect case of making the punishment fit the crime instead of making it fit the criminal—always, I feel, a serious mistake, and never more so than in the case of murderers because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, explained to us earlier, although murder itself may be the blackest crime in the book, murderers are not normally by any means the blackest people.
The Gowers Committee estimated that less than 20 per cent. of the total number of murders were committed by professional criminals. Murders deliberately undertaken for the sake of financial gain are extremely rare. Love, hate, jealousy, envy, pity, these are the sort of emotions which are far more likely to impel one man to take the life of another. They are simple emotions, primary emotions, human emotions, which we can all understand; and though I am not suggesting for a moment that they would in any case excuse the crime, or even in any degree mitigate its gravity, at least they enable us, on occasions, to feel very real pity for the prisoners in the dock, many of whom could never conceivably be recidivists; whose crime, committed on the spur of the moment, would never be repeated; and who constitute no greater threat to society than, I think, any Member of your Lordships' House.
If, however, we are going to abolish the death penalty, there comes the question of what must be put in its place. Here I find myself, to my great surprise, in agreement with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who said earlier on that he also believed that it was a great mistake for the death penalty to be necessarily replaced in the Bill which your Lordships have at present before you, by life imprisonment. It seems to me that, once the shadow of death has
522
been averted, there is no longer any cause to withhold from Her Majesty's Judges their normal right to decide for themselves the length of sentence which they consider appropriate, according to the evidence before them. I should, therefore, like to sec this Bill amended in that respect, to restore to them that right, and to give them very wide latitude and discretion as to the length of sentence which they consider suitable—a length of sentence which should certainly go as far as imprisonment for life. And I entirely agree that, in this particular case, imprisonment for life should, if necessary, mean exactly what it says.
I do not want to speak for too long. Far be it from me to he accused of doing a "Maiden Egremont", if I may be permitted the expression, but before sitting down there is one more point I should like to make which concerns the argument which we have heard this afternoon that abolition is splendid, that it should be adopted, but at the same time the death penalty should be retained in one or two special cases, in particular those of the murder of police and prison officers in the pursuance of their duties. I have an immense admiration and respect for police and prison officers, and I well understand the dangers that they occasionally have to face, and the courage with which they meet those dangers. At the same time, I hope. I shall not be thought irresponsible or callous if I say that there are other jobs in this country just as dangerous, if not more so. I think we should frankly ask or demand these police and prison officers—and if necessary pay them extra danger money for doing so—to accept these new risks which are, after all, part and parcel of the life of many of their colleagues in Broadmoor and the criminal lunatic asylums, and also of the life of many of their European counterparts.
Because, my Lords, in legislation of this kind no half measures are possible. Either we assume that hanging is good and effective as a punishment, in which case we should keep it, or else we believe that it is bad and ineffective, in which case it must go. I believe, for the reasons which I have tried to explain this afternoon, that it is bad, that it is ineffective, that it is inflexible, and that it is immoral. Therefore, I hope the majority of

523
your Lordships will agree with me that it is a blot which has for too long defaced our reputation for justice and humanity; and that, by means of the present Bill, we shall be able to wipe it out, as it deserves to be wiped out, for ever.
6.21 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, on his maiden speech. He has addressed us on a subject of immense importance with great clarity and reason; he has apparently done it without notes and he has not faltered at all in the presentation of his case, which I am glad to say is a case with which I personally sympathise greatly. Therefore I will only say how much we welcome his coming into this debate and, although it sounds almost too obvious to say, we hope we shall not wait another eleven years before he resumes his share in our discussions.
The noble Baroness who introduced this debate said, and it has been revealed in the course of the debate, that we should in fact spend a great deal of our time considering the question of deterrents. I have listened to all that has been said to-day and I have read, as your Lordships have, the debate in another place and much argument before, both here and elsewhere; and, in all fairness, although I rise to support the Second Reading with all my heart, I must say there is a limit to the degree in which one can prove a case either way in terms of deterrence. There is always the danger that either side will claim too much. It is really remarkable to me that in this long and careful survey of the Royal Commission, who listened to a great deal of evidence, and adduced a great weight of statistics, they come out with a guarded and rather negative support of abolition in terms of deterrence. They recognise, as has been said before, that it is only possible to estimate those who have not been deterred and not those who have been deterred; therefore, to some extent, this is an argument to which there is no end.
I think we should agree with the writers of the Report that to the ordinary man who reflects upon it at all the threat of
524
losing his life in punishment for the sin of murder is one that is likely to come with greater force, at least as he reflects upon it, than any other penalty. On the other hand, we must recognise that those claims which are made outlining the dangers that would ensue to our society, or any other, on the removal of this penalty, are apt to be over-coloured, and I must adhere myself to the kind of summary which this Report gives and of which I will quote only one sentence:
"The general conclusion which we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures that we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its re-introduction has led to a fall."
That, I submit, is as far as we ought to attempt to go, and we ought to recognise that counter views can be held with great sincerity and with some appeal to the facts. But this means that we shall have to make our decision, when we do make it, upon this even balance of arguments. I believe there will never come a time. even if we waited to the Greek Kalends, when we should have better evidence one way or the other.
The argument was made that we should not repeal or amend the present Homicide Act until we have had further opportunities of seeing its effect. I think that holds no water at all. We shall never reach the stage when it will be seen from the statistics clearly, one way or the other, whether hanging is a real and unique deterrent or not, and I hope, in the light of this, that we shall make our decision now rather than attempt to defer it to some later date.
It has been recognised, although not much raised in this debate, that part of the deterrent is not the penalty itself. There is not only the fear of being found out but also the general attitude of society to the crime; and perhaps the greater weight of capital punishment lies in the fact that society has stated its abhorrence of the crime rather than in the actual penalty itself. The element of retribution in punishment has been perhaps rather too easily set aside. It is quite commonly said that at least to-day, whatever we thought in the past, we recognise that punishment was primarily a deterrent or a reformatory, and that the element of retribution was out of date. I cannot agree. It is out of date, of course, if by "retribution" we mean an act of

525
vengeance on the part of society against the individual, or a suggestion that the individual is being asked to atone for his crimes by a particular penalty. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, who is not here at the moment, will not continue to interpret that passage of the scriptures in terms of this kind of retribution.
On the other hand, there is the true element of retribution in which society declares its mind about certain conduct. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who is here this afternoon, is quoted in the Report as saying that punishment for grave crimes should reflect adequately the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizens for them. I warmly accept that. The law is concerned with more than keeping order; it is there in all its majesty to uphold the rights of individual men to life and their own mutual obligations to one another, and those who would dismiss this act of society in repudiating certain conduct forcibly on the ground that it has no place nowadays in punishment are, I believe, over-simplifying the issue. Indeed, reformation of the criminal is something inseparably connected with the proper act of retribution. Reformation must mean, in part, bringing home to the individual his moral responsibility for his actions and their consequences, and part of this process must be in pressing upon him the abhorrence, the repudiation, of society of the act which he has committed.
In the case of murder we want this repudiation to be as clear, strong, and impressive as it can be, but for that very reason I would share the opinion of those who say that society can repudiate the taking of life far better, and can declare its conviction of the importance and sanctity of life far more effectively, if it refuses to claim a life for a life and does not exact the death of the culprit to match the death of his victim. We may speak about "paying the ultimate penalty", but no murderer can really pay for another person's death by his own and, as it were, wipe the slate clean in the process. The taking of life is irrevocable. It cannot he put right; it cannot he atoned for. Whatever the feelings of the family or friends of the victim may be—and I have no doubt there is a strong temptation, which any of us so involved would share, of vindictiveness
526
or a desire to "pay out" the perpetrator—the life that has been taken cannot be recalled, and no action taken upon the criminal will affect that. The life has gone, the place will remain empty, and there can be no question of "paying him out" in that sense, or that he is paying off his debt. Society has in all its force to make clear that this is the abhorrent nature of murder because it is irrevocable, whatever happens to the offender. But I believe it will do so, and I repeat this, far more effectively not by taking life in return but by dealing with the criminal, at whatever great cost and the responsibility on society itself may he, in other ways.
Society at present, I believe, under the present Act, is not declaring its mind very clearly in matters of murder. One of the obvious reasons for wishing to amend the present Homicide Act, in terms of the Bill whose Second Reading we are debating now, is surely this extremely dubious anomalous situation in which we tried to divide murder in two different categories. I know this has been based purely on a desire to add our full deterrent to certain types of murder, and it is not intended to be a judgment in terms of heinousness on one type of crime rather than another. Never-the less, I believe that in the public mind that is the effect. They see a murder as a murder and they see one murder dealt with in a different way from another; and without going into the anomalous distinctions that occur, this is something that both perplexes the public, strikes them as quite unjust, and adds nothing to the credit of the law.
There must no doubt be anomalies in any law that fixes a different scale of penalties for different actions. There is always bound to be a situation in which one short step which is in itself a minimal and comparatively light step topples you over, as it were, into a different class or crime and imposes an additional penalty which seems out of proportion to that extra step that has been taken. You will always get that. But this ought not to happen, surely, when it is an issue of life and death, when that distinction which is made between one kind of crime and another involves in one case life imprisonment and in the other case hanging. And if were were to continue with the law as it is, I believe that

527
either it would become increasingly unpopular, it would fester in the mind of the community, or judges and juries would increasingly find it difficult to impose. We might find inevitably that penalties for capital murders were more and more approximating, as it were, to those assigned to non-capital murders. It may be some would prefer that the penalty should fade out in that kind of way, as it seems to be doing. But I suggest that is not the best way of honouring the dignity of the law, to have a penalty which in the end you do not wish to impose and will find every possible excuse for not imposing. I suggest it would be better for us to grasp the nettle and say we wish to abolish in all categories the penalty of hanging for murder.
It has been said that in this debate Parliament is a good deal ahead of public opinion, and I am sure that is to a large extent true. I do not think we need be surprised at that. Public opinion has not been so constantly engaged in this question as Parliament has over a good number of years; it has not thought very much about it. The general public does not study the statistics, it does not see in fact how many murders have not, over the course even of the last half century, been visited with the ultimate penalty of death. It is a surprising fact that in the first half century before we considered this possible change, up to 1950, on an average only one in twelve murders was punished by death in England, and only one in twenty-five in Scotland. That does not take into account the suicides which might have involved capital penalty if they had not been successful. But it does suggest that all along for a long time now we have been seeking, edging our way towards, a recognition that we should like to dispose of this penalty if we can. We have had evidence cited to-day that judges and juries themselves feel uncomfortable about the present situation. The public may not yet be aware of this.
But it is certainly not our business to wait for public opinion in such an important issue. The Churches have made their own pronouncements through their assemblies on this. They would not dream of saying they represent all Christian opinion or that there has been any Gallup Poll among the Churches on this.
528
In the Convocations they have said as representatives what they thought right; and I take it that this is the business of this House also; and in the end I believe we shall be seen in a far more creditable light and far more Christian light if, instead of waiting for positive evidence, which will never occur, on grounds of principle and of utility we grasp the nettle at this time and make our decision, as indeed I hope we shall do to-morrow afternoon.
6.38 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it seemed to me that on this occasion I would wish to testify rather than to argue. The right reverend Prelate, who puts us right on theological points, will perhaps correct me if I am using a theological term wrongly. It is certainly a word used in some debates. And this has really become a matter of faith with very many of us, although we do buttress it tremendously with arguments and we feel that the arguments are overwhelming. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, these arguments have been going on for a very long time. Every intelligible argument has been used at least a hundred times, and a very large number of unintelligible arguments have been used almost as often. I think at this stage that every Member of your Lordships' House who has decided to come to this debate must already pretty well have formed an opinion about these matters. I do not flatter myself that I am an advocate skilful enough to persuade your Lordships to change your views. But I did feel that I wished (if I may use the word "testify" again) to testify in this debate, because for a very long time I have been very closely bound up with the movement for the abolition of capital punishment, and I felt I should not like this debate to go by without taking some part in it.
I also wish to say a few words of a rather more detailed character about the history of this movement over these last years. It has been referred to by the noble Baroness who moved this Motion, and also to some extent by my noble friend Lord Stonham. I do think it suggests that it would be an act of wisdom on the part of this House to give this Bill a Second Reading, and I think the wisdom of this can be demonstrated in the history of this business over the

529
last years. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, rather rapped over the knuckles the Member of another place who was responsible for this Bill, for in effect warning the House to pass his Bill. Constitutionally, I suppose there is no doubt that we are entitled to reject this Bill. But I think we are tending towards a situation in which we should exercise our constitutional rights with great care and with wisdom; and I suggest that in a case like this, where a Bill has come to us from another place with the support of an overwhelming majority of members of both Parties, it would be most unwise on our part to throw it out.
In regard to the first side of this matter it has been my conviction for nearly forty years that capital punishment is an evil thing, a relic of the time of barbarism, and that it is high time, as the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, said, in a most moving maiden speech, it was abolished. I remember well the occasion when this matter was first brought to my notice, some forty years ago at Lancaster Assizes, when a man, who was not a bad murderer, as murderers go, and who—although he had the advantage of being defended by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Kilmuir, in a most eloquent speech, which I remember almost as if he had delivered it yesterday—was convicted by the jury. The point of this episode is that on my way out of the court at Lancaster I happened to see this wretched man being removed. A crowd had assembled from all over town, and I was rather struck by the kind of wave of animal passion of those people who had met there, in effect to gloat over a man who was being led out to be executed. I felt that tremendously, and it made me think about this whole problem of capital punishment.
Not long after that I began to take a close interest in it, and for some years I had the honour to be President of the Society for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, which has now been merged in the Howard League, that great criminal law reform society. Among its earlier Presidents that abolition society had a great lawyer, Lord Buckmaster. He was a keen propounder of this view, and one whom I should like to remember on this occasion when I hope that
530
this Bill is to go through. The society also had as a crusader and prophet in this regard the late Roy Calvert. I think that we ought to remember him also in this matter, because when the history of all this business is written he will figure largely as one of the great men who took part in it. I think Calvert turned this movement to a large extent into something in the nature of a crusade, in which the noble and learned Lord now on the Woolsack has been a most eminent crusader. I think that we crusaders are now getting close to Jordan. We see Jerusalem across the Jordan of your Lordships' House. I hope that to-morrow evening we shall decide to cross the river. To come to Jordan we have had to struggle for a long time in the wilderness, and it would be folly not to recognise that we have been pushed off and defeated on several occasions in the not-too-distant past by the votes in your Lordships' House.
I think it would be useful to look at the history just a little more in detail. When the Bill which later became the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, came to this House it contained, as has been pointed out this afternoon, a clause abolishing capital punishment. That clause was not passed when the Bill reached its Committee stage. The late Lord Llewellyn—"J. J."—whose memory dwells in the affection of all who knew him, moved to strike out the clause, and it was stricken out. I had the honour to wind up that debate, at the request of the then noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, who voted with me. But in spite of—or perhaps because of—my argument, those of us who went into the Division Lobby on the abolitionist side were small in number, only some 28, whilst our opposition numbered 180. It is possible that at that stage, as Lord Stonham suggested, there was an argument, not altogether specious, for taking this view, in that the majority in the Commons had been a quite small one (I think about only 20), and that the number of abstentions had been large, and to show that there was a case for arguing that on second thoughts that particular Bill should be thrown out.
This episode led to the appointment of the Royal Commission which has so often been referred to this afternoon. That was a most important step in the history of this business, because their Report was

531
one of those outstanding State documents which has, in my view, done a tremendous amount to build up public opinion in regard to this matter. And I think that, ever since the Gowers Report came out, informed opinion has been steadily moving towards the abolitionist point of view. In effect, Gowers came down against capital punishment, and it was a noteworthy fact that the chairman, Sir Ernest Gowers, whom one might almost describe as a "hard-boiled civil servant", and who had gone into this investigation, on the whole, on the side of retaining capital punishment, came out of it with his mind made up the other way. I believe that this fact certainly influenced informed opinion in the country, and I should say that informed opinion has now become abolitionist.
This view is most strongly borne out by the next Parliamentary episode, which was the passing of a Resolution, early in 1955, calling for legislation either to abolish or to suspend the death sentence. That was carried into effect quickly, because a Private Members' Bill, which has more than once been referred to to-day, was passed, this time in a Conservative Parliament, by a rather larger majority than the majority which had voted on the previous occasion—a majority of not far short of 50. In my recollection, the Government in another place did not take a strong view; but undoubtedly, when the Bill came here, the noble and learned Earl, who was then on the Woolsack, expressed the opinion of the Government most strongly. In effect, he said to your Lordships, "The Government want you to throw out this Bill". Private Member's Bill, as it may have been, and whether the Whips were on or not, that remark was the equivalent, I should have thought, of a three-line Whip. In those circumstances, it was not perhaps altogether surprising that the Bill was thrown out. But the interesting thing about that occasion was the fact that the number in your Lordships' House who were prepared to vote in favour of abolition had gone up to something over 100. That, I think, was a remarkable achievement. Moreover, it had induced the Government to say that they themselves would bring in a Bill which would to a large extent abolish capital punish
532
ment in respect of murder—a Bill which they did in fact bring in and pass, and a Bill which has been riddled with criticism by almost every speaker this afternoon who has referred to it.
I do not want to add to that criticism, but I ask your Lordships to notice that that Bill abolished capital punishment over a very wide range of murder cases, in fact the great majority of them. Up to that stage it had always been argued that capital punishment was just as much a deterrent in respect of that type of murder as in respect of any other, but after the Bill had become law and had been in operation for a number of years it was discovered that the murder rate had not increased at all. In 1963—the last year for which figures are available—there were 142 murders as against an average in the late 'fifties of 141. It is true that there is a slight difference in the way in which the figures are drawn up, but that is more than cancelled out by the fact that the population has increased largely since that time. So if there is anything which has been proved by the Act of 1957, it is that in respect of the largest number of murder cases capital punishment is not a deterrent at all.
That brings us to the Bill which is before your Lordships' House this afternoon. I have already pointed out that it was passed in another place by a majority of two-to-one, which is a fact that every noble Peer in this House ought to have in mind. While it is obvious from the attitude taken by the Conservative Government in 1957 that the Cabinet as a whole must have been strongly opposed to the passing of the Private Member's Bill, if your Lordships will examine the Division lists in the House of Commons only a week or two ago when the vote was taken you will see that the majority of those who had been Cabinet Ministers in the previous Administration and who voted in that Division voted in fact for the repeal of capital punishment. So far as I can see, there are only two or three of them who are now to be found on the retentionist side.
I suggest that that is a very significant point indeed. It shows that the leaders of Conservative opinion as well as the leaders of Labour opinion—and, of course, the great mass of the Labour

533
Party has been behind this movement for quite a long time—are all in favour of abolishing the last remnants of capital punishment. It seems to me that the Conservative Opposition in this House would be well advised to bear that particular point in mind and to-morrow, when the time comes for us to go into the Division Lobby—and I understand from the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that he intends to force a Division—Conservative Peers should accept the wise counsel that we should all go into the "Aye" Division Lobby and sweep this last remnant of barbarism out of our criminal law system.
6.55 p.m.
LORD ST. HELENS: My Lords, I have neither legal training nor expertise in the law; therefore, I propose to deal with this Bill in broader outline. I shall at the same time be brief. I very well remember some ten years ago in another place, as indeed do many of your Lordships, the occasions when two Bills of this nature were debated, and, of course, they were debated again in your Lordships' House. I detect at the moment a very great difference in the climate of opinion in which these debates are taking place now as opposed to the position ten years ago. Ten years ago, I should say, from my own observation, opinion in Parliament was somewhat rigid on the subject of capital punishment. To-day, ten years later, opinion in Parliament is very much more flexible than it was then.
I was very much impressed the other day, talking to two of my friends from another place, when they told me that they had been profoundly influenced by the speech which was made on Second Reading by Mr. Henry Brooke, who had been Home Secretary. So influenced had they been that they were in fact going to change the manner in which they had originally intended to vote. Speaking from my own experience, I did not see that flexibility of mind ten years ago. But whereas there has come a great change and flexibility among Members of both Houses of Parliament, I do not believe that this change of opinion is reflected throughout the country as a whole. Indeed, I think the country as a whole has changed its opinion very little from the opinion which it held ten years ago.
534
We are told by many of your Lordships this afternoon that we should not consider public opinion in the country and that we should lead the country. But it seems to me that whenever it appears that your Lordships are threatening the Government with a vote against something for which the Government have a mandate, a howl goes up that the Lords are voting against public opinion and must not do so. I do not believe you can have your cake and eat it. I venture to stick to the advice that has been given so frequently throughout the short time I have been in this House, and I personally am going to follow public opinion.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I, with many apologies, interrupt the noble Lord? Of course, one difference from some of the cases the noble Lord mentioned is that if the House of Lords supported this Bill they would. in fact, be acting in line with the House of Commons.
LORD ST. HELENS: I am not going to pursue that line of argument at the moment. I myself am not in support of this Bill.
Reverting to the 1957 Act, I would point out that there were two basic principles which underlay the Act and which are contained in it. The first principle is that society has no right to take a man's life as an act of retribution, as an act of punishment—indeed, this was mentioned by the noble Earl earlier on. The second principle is that society has not only the right but the obligation to protect itself. I believe that one sees those two principles outlined in the current Act. The killer whose venom is directed against a single, isolated individual receives a punishment less than death. On the other hand, the death penalty is reserved for the killer who has shown himself to be an enemy of society either by killing more than once, by killing in armed robbery, or by putting a bomb in an aeroplane in order to kill one single victim and in fact killing many more besides. These are the people for whom the death penalty is reserved as a protection for society itself. I firmly believe—I will not develop this argument, for it has already been fully developed—that the death penalty for that type of person, a person who is brutal and generally a coward, is a genuine deterrent.

535
Under the Bill we are now discussing these clear distinctions against the individual killer in the name of society are removed, and society is no longer protected against the wanton killer. That is why I shall vote against the Bill. In this Bill, the phrase "imprisonment for life" is meaningless, and it gives no guarantee to society that the sentence of the court will in fact be carried out on the criminal. I believe, too, that we are rather apt to overlook the fear of violence which clouds so many people's lives in this country. One saw this very much as a Member of Parliament, particularly in London. In my constituency was the prison of Wandsworth, which has been so much in the news lately, and whenever there was an escape—and there have been several escapes—the residents in the district were genuinely terrified at night. There were frequent crimes of violence in the district, generally committed by young people, and many of them ended in death.
There is a large number of people living in the towns who are genuinely terrified of these crimes of violence—old people, elderly spinsters living alone, or perhaps an old couple or a single person living above the shop which they run in the daytime. One of the things which struck me so much, was how seldom people of this nature go out. One would visit them as a Member of Parliament, and in course of conversation they would say, "We do not go out very much" and one might well find that "not going out very much" meant only going out for an hour or so once a week to do the shopping. Those are the people who believe themselves to be protected by the death penalty which exists at this moment.
I agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, who said earlier on that this is not the time, when crimes of violence are on the increase, to remove the death penalty. For myself, I do not believe that we are justified in depriving society of what it believes to be a measure of protection against crimes of violence. It is for that reason that I shall vote against the Bill.
7.3 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will decide to give this Bill a Second Reading. The issue which is raised though most markedly limited as com
536
pared to the issue which existed when the Homicide Bill of 1957 was under consideration, is nevertheless one that calls for fresh decision. I do not myself take the view that it can never be the duty of the State, or that it can never be within the right of the State, to take a life, but I do submit that a heavy burden of proof must be discharged before we should feel persuaded that there is a stern and solemn need for action so final and irrevocable. We can put out the light of life: we cannot light it again.
Whatever view your Lordships may hold in regard to retribution as such, I hope you will reject the idea that the death penalty is to be endorsed as a measure of retribution. Our abhorrence and condemnation of taking life is not well expressed if we must adopt that which we condemn. If this be so, then any warrant for even the most limited retention of the death penalty can be found only if it is shown that by its retention the lives of innocent persons are to be saved. Surely it is right for us to think of potential innocent victims of future dastardly acts. Endeavouring to make my approach in that way, I am not convinced that it is necessary to retain the death penalty in murder cases, for I am not persuaded that, as a deterrent, it is effective.
It is now some years since I had the anxious and most unenviable responsibility of presiding at a murder trial, as I did on occasion. It was some years before 1957. But I would remind your Lordships that, both before that year and to some extent since, those persons whom Her Majesty's Judges have seen in the dock are persons who have not been deterred by the existence of the death penalty. This, I think, shows either that the circumstances had been such that the accused never gave a thought as to what would happen to him—murders in passion or murders in sexual excitement are, perhaps, illustrations—or that he had not been deterred because he was convinced that he was clever enough not to be found out. The poisoner is an illustration of that sort of attitude. I can hardly imagine a worse or more horrible type of murder than that effected by the poisoner—cold, calculated, deliberate, scheming, cunning, merciless, relentless. Yet to-day that is not capital murder. We have already been reminded

537
that to kill by stabbing with a dagger or with a knife may not be capital murder, but to kill by shooting is. My Lords, which of us can be happy with such a state of the law?
Of murder cases, I understand that the overwhelming preponderance to-day are non-capital cases. From the passing of the 1957 Act to the end of 1963, I understand that about six cases out of seven have been non-capital, and one out of seven capital; and on a survey of the cases between 1952 and 1957 it has been estimated that had the Act of 1957 been in existence the proportions would little have differed. So your Lordships are, in effect, dealing with the fate of but a very few persons, and considering the possible fate of but a very few potential victims. In a debate on road safety, your Lordships are concerned with the lives of vast numbers of people. Yet I am sure we must agree that the present question has a moral content somewhat special to itself.
In reaching the view that I have expressed I have not neglected to pay heed to the contention which I think it would be idle not to recognise as having weight, that the hardened professional criminal, about to embark upon some crime such as theft or robbery, might be deterred from carrying a gun if there were a death penalty but would not otherwise be so deterred. We cannot be sure about these things, but the man who is wicked enough to plan and be prepared to take life proceeds on the basis that he will be clever enough not to be caught. If his thinking ever proceeded on the basis that he might be caught, I am not persuaded that the thought of a sentence of life imprisonment, with all that that could involve, would not constitute an effective deterrent.
I would just add this comment: that it is very often in those cases where guns have been used, and where events have moved swiftly and unexpectedly, that there may be some uncertainties as to the facts. Her Majesty's Judges, who preside at and guide the course of trials, are imbued by their training and by the tradition of which they are inheritors with a passionate desire to avoid all risks of error. In spite of their vigilance, might there not, even though only on some rare occasion, be some risk of a wrong conclusion? My Lords, we should wish
538
to banish even that small risk, but we must accept it if the arguments for the retention of the death penalty are compelling. It is because I do not think they are that I propose to vote for this Bill.
7.13 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I start by saying that I am absolutely opposed to this Bill—and I repeat the words "to this Bill". I think it is incomplete; I think that, because it is incomplete, it may have disastrous effects; and I believe it is incapable of adequate amendment. I hope, during my remarks, to deal with some of the points that have been raised, and particularly with the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, with whom I largely agree. I would remind your Lordships that it was only last Wednesday that we were discussing the increase of serious crime and that it was agreed on all sides of the House, including the Government Benches, that this increase in serious crime was causing great anxiety and fear amongst the public—and that has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord St. Helens.
I know the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, have said that we ought to lead the public in these matters. That may well be true; but should the public not be consulted? And have they been consulted? The answer to that is, "No". There is nothing in the Labour Party manifesto about this. It is far too hot a potato, and unpopular; and we know that this Bill may well be unpopular in the country. The public as such—and they may be behind-hand in their thinking—do not want it. But it was rather odd that the public were given no right of expressing an opinion at the Election—because there was nothing in the manifesto and it was avoided in the present Government's speeches, although only a week or two after that it appeared in the Queen's Speech. So it was evidently something the Government did not particularly want discussed at Election time. My argument this evening is this—and I hope to call the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice in support of it: that this should have been a Government Bill, and that unless it is a Government Bill it will never answer the questions which we have all been posing this afternoon. Because

539
I do not think any Private Member has sufficient knowledge of the whole picture.
There has been a good deal of talk about whether capital punishment is a deterrent or not, and various statistics have been quoted, both to-day and on previous occasions. I do not think they are worth much. I shall have a further word to say about statistics; but there is something which might be a pointer as to whether or not capital punishment is a deterrent. Your Lordships have recently passed through this House the Firearms Bill. I am well aware that the law on firearms needed some revision, but this Bill was introduced into the other place in something of a panic—or perhaps I will be kinder and say in a very great hurry. There was such a great hurry that it had to be largely rewritten in the other place. By the time it came to your Lordships' House, it was more or less in order.
My Lords, why the hurry? It was because, in fact, there had been an increase, a rather sudden increase, in the use of firearms, and particularly against police officers—a police officer killed, others wounded and several shot at. There was a bit of an outcry in the country, and this Bill was introduced in a hurry. I venture to suggest that this sudden burst of shooting at policemen and others was due to the fact that the criminal knew perfectly well that he was probably going to get a long sentence, and knew perfectly well that, if he shot a policeman, he was not going to hang while this Bill was before Parliament. I suggest (and I think there is reason to suppose that I am right) that this was one of the reasons why they had to bring this Bill forward in such a hurry—the deterrent had gone. So much for that.
May I say one word—and I hope a will be the last word, though I doubt it—about statistics? The abolitionists are always quoting statistics. On the whole, they have kept away from them as much as they can to-day, except for the noble Baroness who introduced this Bill and, I seem to remember, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—and I know the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack quoted them on a previous occasion. They keep on bringing up these particular statistics, such as they are. They first of all quote a series of countries in Europe,
540
usually Scandinavia; but they are all countries quite different from ours. In not one single European country of those mentioned to-day—I am coming to the United States in a minute; I am talking about European countries now—have they a city such as London, Glasgow, Birmingham, Liverpool, or large industrial cities of that kind. They are not that type of country, and so the comparison is useless. I dare say we shall still have the comparisons made, but I hope we shall not.
Then we come to this question of the United States, where it is said that, in certain States, homicide has not increased when they have done away with capital punishment. It is difficult to get the right statistics—and it may be that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when he comes to speak, will have them—but I am informed that what has increased is the number of deaths when men have been resisting arrest. In those States you shoot it out with the police. We do not want to see that. I would ask those people who quote these statistics whether they really want to see the homicide rate as great in this country as it is in the United States. The fact remains that there is only one statistic—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? Does he mean in those States which have abolished capital punishment or in those which have kept it? Because it has already been pointed out that the homicide rate is higher in those States where they have capital punishment.
LORD DERWENT: Higher in one year, but not over a period. I think I am right in that, but the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong. He will probably correct me if I am right, too. But the only statistic worth having is one we cannot get, and that is why I say I hope we shall hear no more about statistics. That is the number of those who have not committed murder because there was capital punishment.
It has been suggested at different times that if this Bill is passed there is really no great added danger to police and prison officers. I would ask this question of those who take that view: Are there any promoters of this Bill or any

541
who support it who really think that, if this Bill becomes law, they themselves will suffer any additional risk? They know they will not. Nor shall I. But they apparently are prepared to put at risk those who work closest to dangerous criminals and who believe they will be put at risk. I agree with the police officers and prison officers who believe so. If any of us here find ourselves in a danger zone where somebody is using a pistol, a knife or a crowbar we have the option of getting out of the danger zone if we can. Neither the police nor prison officers have that option; their job is to get closer to the danger and to deal with it. Before we put those men to added risk we should think carefully. The remarkable thing is that they do go into the danger areas; whereas you and I, if we so choose, do our best to avoid it.
My real opposition to this Bill is that it answers no questions. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said it was essential, if capital punishment were to be abolished, that we should have something definite to put in its place. I hope I am not misquoting him; I believe that was the gist of his remarks. Many people believe that, if capital punishment is abolished, the judges should decide the sentence to be passed. This Bill, in effect, is going to impose for murder a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. You can get that for rape. The judges are perfectly capable of deciding what is a proper sentence in a case of rape, and if capital punishment is abolished, they are perfectly capable of deciding what sentences should be awarded.
Another question following upon the abolition of capital punishment is that of the mechanism of reprieve. As my noble friend Lord Dilhorne asked: would this apply also in the case of long sentences? It is not right that it should be left in these circumstances in the hands of a Minister. It was, of course, left in the hands of a Minister because it was capital punishment. In my view, as soon as you cease to have capital punishment, the punishment for murder will become the same as punishment for any other crime. I agree with the Lord Chief Jusetice on that matter.
But this Bill does nothing to answer the question of sentencing or reprieve. If it is passed in its present form, the Bill
542
will leave a very serious gap in our fight against crime. Of that I am certain. The proper thing to do with this Bill is to withdraw it, and for the Government to have the "guts"—if I may use that expression in your Lordships' House—to introduce a proper Bill and, if they want to do away with capital punishment, to include in that Bill all the other reforms in regard to sentencing, and so on, which I am well aware they wish to make. If they would present a comprehensive Bill of that kind, I think there would be very little opposition now.
I believe that this present Bill is quite disastrous. The Lord Chief Justice spoke about amending it. I do not quite see how he is going to get the Amendments that he referred to into this Bill at all. I would remind the House that some of the things that he suggested were tried in another place, and the other place refused to have anything to do with them, partly because they could not make up their minds which Amendments they wanted. What is the good of giving this Bill a Second Reading and, later, of putting in Amendments which we know the other place does not at the moment like, and on which we have no Government view? I beg your Lordships to see my arguments on this point. There ought to be a comprehensive Government Bill. The proper way to deal with this Bill is to take it out on Second Reading and not to try to amend it.
7.26 p.m.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: My Lords, as your Lordships have listened to so many speeches I do not wish to take up much time at this hour. It seems to me that the issue before us is quite plain and simple. I am sure that none of us will be led away by the red herrings of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that the present Bill should be rejected in order that the Government may introduce another Bill at a later stage.
LORD DERWENT: A proper Bill.
LORD FRANCIS-WILLIAMS: Proper or improper, who is to decide? I am certain, from listening to the arguments of those who are against this Bill. that it is inconceivable that any Bill, of any kind, which ended hanging would be regarded by them as a proper one. This Bill is a simple and clear one, aiming to

543
achieve what I believe to be a laudable objective; and though it is a Private Member's Bill, it has, as we have been told, the support of the Government.
The simple issue before us seems to be this. Are we to conduct our affairs in grave matters—and the issue of life and death is surely one of the gravest—in the light of reason and the weighing of such evidence as is available or by emotion and didactic opinion? I have listened carefully to the majority of these speeches during this debate, and it seems to me that all the evidence has been on one side and all the didactic opinion on the other. The evidence is not, of course, final and absolute—such evidence never can be so. But I find it odd to note the contempt that is thrown by the opponents of this Bill on the statistics when we are considering the abolition of the death penalty, in contrast to the general approval of the need for more statistical research and more knowledge of this kind when we are considering great economic questions. I do not believe that we can say that statistics, when available, are a reasonable guide in some of our affairs but cease to be acceptable as a guide as soon as our emotions enter into the matter.
Statistics in existence in other countries in Europe, in the U.S.A. and in this country since the passing of the 1957 Act, have all indicated, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, that there is not one scrap of evidence to show that execution is a deterrent to murder. If we are to govern our affairs at all by the light of reason—and how else can we hope to reach a civilised way of life?—we must surely take account of the evidence that is there, seek to weigh it and to decide. The noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, does not accept this evidence. He thinks that hanging is a deterrent. My Lords, what Lord Dilhorne thinks is not evidence. It is often fascinating, and sometimes very revealing; but it is not evidence. The whole weight of the evidence, national and international, such as exists is on the one side. Of course, as I said, it is not final and conclusive; but it is only by weighing, considering and bringing our intellects to bear on such evidence as is available even when it cannot be
544
(as by the nature of the evidence it rarely can be) 100 per cent. absolute. It is only by a readiness so to do that we can move and govern our affairs as reasonable men. The whole weight of reason in this matter lies on the side of those in favour of this Bill.
My Lords, there are issues beyond those of strict reason: the effect, I submit, of capital punishment on the whole quality and texture of our lives and our civilisation. All my life I have been a newspaperman, concerned inevitably, because of the interest that is aroused when publicised executions are afoot, with the emotions, and often the hysteria, which surround such affairs. The emotions as they are evidenced by the letters that flow into newspaper offices on such occasions are not pleasant emotions. When I think of this great problem my mind goes back to a day when, as a very young newspaper reporter, I had been sent by my paper to a prison in Shepton Mallet, in Somerset, where a prisoner was being executed. It was a famous case because, as it happened, he was the son of a notorious character who had been an M.P. before the First World War; had then been found to be a German spy; had disappeared and then announced that he had retired to a monastery somewhere on the borders of Tibet. When his son was arrested and found guilty of murder with theft (which, although the distinction between capital and other murders did not then exist, would still be subject to capital punishment), cabled messages came that the father was hurrying home to see his son before the execution. It was therefore one of those occasions which arouse all the appetites of a large section of the British public which are roused by such affairs.
I remember how, in that little market town of Shepton Mallet, when the sister and brother and other relatives of the dead man arrived, they were followed round the streets by crowds, fascinated in one of the most unpleasant kind of ways which I ever wish to see. I remember the crowd outside the prison on the morning of the execution, and the tremor of excitement and hysteria that travelled through that crowd as, just a few minutes before 8 o'clock, a countrywoman arrived with a large basket on her arm

545
and went up to the door. When somebody stopped her, she said, "I have got my work to do. I am taking in the hangman's breakfast. An execution always makes him hungry".
I remember, as we stood there waiting, suddenly seeing a horde of small children run in front of the prison and disappear down a side street. I followed them to see what they were doing. They were standing against a wall of the prison, each with an ear pressed to the wall. I said, "What are you doing?" The oldest of them said, "You come and listen. If you put your ear just here, you can hear the drop". I thought, what an education in humane civilisation we were giving to those children! Let there be no doubt that the whole paraphernalia of an execution, the public mood that it engenders, is one that diminishes the moral and civilised virtues of our community.
My Lords, I believe that in this matter the issue is plain. Reason and humanity both point the one way; emotion and prejudice point the other. I have too much regard for this House to believe that it will choose the latter course.
7.35 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, this is the third time in my comparatively short membership of this House that I have spoken on this subject. I was brought up as an abolitionist, and when I found myself in the Editor's chair at the News Chronicle between the wars, I inherited also quite a lot of good radical Liberalism. The News Chronicle, so long as I had anything to do with it, was definitely abolitionist. I was momentarily checked in my appreciation of the situation as it developed in 1948 when I heard that the Royal Commission which was about to be set up was very straitened by its terms of reference; and there were, I suppose, two or three weeks in which a certain amount of back-chat took place between the two Houses of Parliament.
I was slightly doubtful about the outcome, but I need not have worried, because the Chairman of the Royal Commission, Sir Ernest Gowers, spent three years hard at work, hearing evidence from all quarters. And after the Commission had reported he must have gone to his study and spent the next three or four years in writing the background history
546
in simple terms—and he was a great expert in Government literature: his Plain Words is one of the best books one could give to a young civil servant. In writing his book on capital punishment, A Life for a Life, he definitely but steadily changed his mind. And this is how he expressed what happened to him:
"Before serving on the Royal Commission I. like most other people, had given no great thought to this problem. If I had been asked for my opinion, I should probably have said that I was in favour of the death penalty (and disposed to regard abolitionists as people whose hearts were bigger than their heads). Four years of close study of the subject gradually dispelled that feeling. In the end I became convinced that the abolitionists were right in their conclusions—though I could not agree with all their arguments—and that so tar from the sentimental approach leading into their camp and the rational one into that of the supporters, it was the other way about."
The Chairman of that Commission must have had a most intimate knowledge of the people directly involved on all sides of our prison system and of the individuals concerned. What he says seems to me to prove that the more one knows of this whole topic, the more certainly one becomes an abolitionist.
As an ex-professional statistician, I was prepared to take some part in discussing the statistics, but I am not going to say anything more about them, except that I have never seen any figures or graphs which have changed their direction whether the death penalty has been put on or taken off. I have never seen any definite change brought about by anything that we might do in that regard. I say that because the interesting speeches on statistics that we have had have, I think, killed stone dead the thought that there is a unique deterrent. If there is one, it is certainly not the death penalty. There are no Bishops in the House at the moment, and therefore I will not comment on the emotional argument, which is one of the two halves of the question. But I am a little surprised that there has been no reference to the mistakes that are made in sentencing men to the death penalty. The more mistakes that are made, the more certain it is that public opinion will change and become more and more worried about the attitude towards abolition.
My noble friend Lord Byers, also an ex-newspaper man, is intensely interested in trying to get a pardon for Evans. I

547
remember the time when I had the News Chronicle staff alerted (as we use to say) about what seemed to me a miscarriage of justice in the case of Oscar Slater. Two of our men were commissioned to unravel this problem, and I am glad to say that after they had made their case Slater was pardoned and was given a licence which put on record that there had been a miscarriage of justice. It did not say that he had been a victim of mistaken identity, but that is exactly what happened to him. He received very unsual treatment, because he was given special permission in an Act of Parliament to take his case before the Appeal Court in Scotland, which was his home country. The Treasury gave him an ex gratia payment of compensation of £6,000 for the eighteen years that he served in gaol when, at the end of that period, he was unanimously given a verdict by the court that he was not guilty. At such a time, when there is a crop of these stories, public opinion changes readily. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in thinking that there has been, underneath the ups and downs of moving opinion, an opinion moving in favour of the abolitionists' case.
Finally, we cannot leave this alone. If and when the death penalty is abolished, that will be a good start. But there must be an education of public opinion; and I believe that constant education going on quietly is the way to do it. We should all, whatever we may be busy with in life, never forget that a new generation is growing up, and it will be a generation built around the ideas they get from their elders. This is one of the subjects on which we can help.
7.52 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, practically everything that I had intended to say this evening has already been said, some things more than once, and I will not weary your Lordships with vain repetition. I first became concerned with this subject many years ago. We have heard in this debate to-day from those who have acted as prosecutors and those who have acted as defenders in murder trials, and also from one noble and learned Lord, at least, who has acted as a judge. I cannot claim to have their knowledge, but as a young man I had an experience which I shall never forget.
548
Although I was young, I was a senior magistrate of the City of Glasgow, and it fell to me to go to Barlinie Prison in Glasgow with the Town Clerk of Glasgow to tell a man who had been condemned for murder (and I use the term "condemned for murder" rather than a "murderer", because in my opinion there was a doubt) that his appeal for a reprieve had been refused. Believe me, my Lords, that was a very painful experience, and it was one which has left a mark on my mind ever since. I was grateful at the time only that I was a senior magistrate, because the most junior magistrate had the more painful experience that he had to be present at an execution. I have seen my colleagues come back white, shaken and completely wrecked by the experience of witnessing an execution. I believe that if more of us had to undergo that painful experience, more of us would be in favour of this Bill.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who wanted statistics and facts. In referring to these, I thought he was less than fair to the notable maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, who provided probably more facts and statistics than any other speaker in this debate. Just to brush that aside, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, did, was. I think, quite inexcusable.
That brings me to the only point that I want to make to your Lordships. In recent debates in this House on other matters we have heard a great deal of argument as to where the onus of proof should lie. I feel strongly that on the issue which is now before us the onus of proof should lie on the retentionists, and not on the abolitionists. All through history the retentionists have been wrong. The retentionists on this issue are the spiritual—I hope that none of them are the lineal—descendants of those who argued that we must retain child labour in the mines and the factories; who defended hanging, drawing and Quartering; and who defended capital punishment for what we now regard as minor offences. They were wrong, and have been proved to be wrong by the experience of history, on every great moral, social and political issue which has been before the country. Therefore, I say that the onus of proof is

549
on the retentionists, placed on them inescapably by the extent to which their spiritual predecessors have been proved by experience to have been wrong all through history. I hope that the House will pass this Bill by an overwhelming majority.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like to tell him that during the first part of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, when the statistics were given, my noble friend Lord Derwent was not present. I was here, but I am afraid I was not quick enough to get them down.
7.59 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, first of all, I should like to pay tribute to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich. I think it was one of the best maiden speeches that has been made in this House for a long time, and I want to put my opinion on record.
I want, in three minutes, to try to put this issue into the broadest possible context that I can devise, and I will do it very quickly. It seems to me that the progress of Western civilisation, looked at over a rather long time, is marked by a series of trends, and one is the trend in penal reform. The direction of this trend has been to reduce penalties for crime of all kinds. I think we all recognise this. This trend has been very marked over the last 100 years. Yet this same 100 years has also been characterised for a rapidly growing degree of respect by one individual for another throughout Western society. I know it is fashionable, particularly as we all grow older, to put on rose-tinted spectacles and look back to the past, to worship the past and denigrate the present. But if we are objective, we all know that, by and large, we live in a better society to-day, in terms of human decency, one to another, than ever before. In short, along with progressive penalty reduction, the lives of ordinary people have become less brutish and more humane.
There is an intimate connection between these two things. Resistance to penalty reduction seems to be endemic in certain parts of society, and it seems nearly always to be connected with fear of the consequences. I do not think that anxiety is a sufficient reason for rejecting this Bill. With respect to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and
550
those who think as he does, his resistance to this Bill is largely based, so far as I can see, on unwillingness to take risks. He indicated that he might at some time in the future be prepared to become an abolitionist. I infer from this that he awaits the results of the bolder initiatives shown by other societies, and that, when they have taken the risks for him, he will move in and be prepared to take similar risks.
I have not much use for that attitude towards social reform. Nobody denies the possibility that there may be some risk, but when the Government of the day took their decision on Suez—and I shall never forgive them for it—they put at risk more lives than the abolition of hanging will put at risk in 200 years. We are always taking risks with lives, and it is the emphasis on this very mild risk which seems to me to be something of a false argument. In any case, if we are to talk of this very mild degree of risk-taking, we must also talk of the gains. It is so easy, in a matter of this sort, to take the narrow view and to forget that penal reform is part of the total reform of society towards a kinder and better way of life.
So long as the State claims the right deliberately to end life, people comprising that State will have a tendency to regard life more cheaply, and in the long run it is the general attitude to life by members of society which will determine the number of murders which take place. I have some sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, in feeling that, somehow, we might try to eradicate the notion that the price of a life is ten years' imprisonment. I do not know whether it can be done, but I support the main provisions of this Bill, because it is part of a historic trend to a better way of life. In recent years we in this country have failed in a large number of directions to behave like a dynamic, reforming, risk-taking society. I will not enumerate the areas over which we have failed. I say, let us now join with other nations, who have led us in this matter, in helping to give a humane lead to the rest of the world by giving this Bill a Second Reading.
8.4 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am glad that in discussing this Bill your Lordships have concentrated on only two

551
questions, because I think those are the only two that are relevant. First: is the death penalty a unique deterrent? And, secondly, if it is, are we justified in using it? I would describe myself as a limited retentionist. I believe that under certain conditions the death penalty provides a deterrent that no other acceptable sentence can provide. I also believe that the death penalty should be retained, if possible limiting it to those cases where it is a unique deterrent and using the prerogative of mercy wherever possible. I will try to give my reasons.
In the first place, like many of my noble friends, I do not believe it is possible to prove the deterrent value of the death penalty one way or the other by quoting past statistics, either from this country or from abroad. The incidence of murder is mathematically too small. But certain noble Lords have based their case for believing that the death penalty is not a unique deterrent, and accordingly for supporting this Bill, on statistics. These noble Lords have included the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, the noble Lord, Lord Reay, the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, the noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. But if statistics are valid when they appear to support one argument, they must be equally valid if they are shown subsequently to support the other. I would ask all these noble Lords to make up their minds and to let us know now, should this Bill be passed and should the numbers of what are now capital murders rise, how great a rise will persuade them to vote against the Bill when it comes up for review in five years' time. Perhaps noble Lords who have yet to speak will declare this during the course of their remarks.
If statistics are of no value, then the solution must be arrived at by reasoning. Life imprisonment, as it is now implied, means, in most cases, nine or ten years, as has been said. Where a potential murder is the only crime involved, this must be a tremendous deterrent. It is difficult to look beyond the next ten years. You might well have only a few years to live by that time, or you might be dead already. Your capacity for enjoying life, even life enriched by what
552
ever advantages you hoped to achieve by murder, will be much diminished. The choice is plain: if you do not murder you will go free; if you do murder you will stand the chance of spending the rest of your foreseeable life in prison. But if the murder is to be committed during the course of some other crime to avoid detection, to escape arrest, or even to escape from prison, the picture is very different. You have already incurred the probability of going to prison, if caught, for a certain time. There is all the difference in the world between the prospect of ten years' imprisonment to a free man, and ten years to a man who has already earned, say, three years. Here the choice is different. If you do not murder, you will almost certainly go to prison. If you do murder, you may get a longer sentence, or you may get away with it. The nearer a man's probable sentence is to ten years, the less effective as a deterrent will life imprisonment be; and if you are likely to get ten years in any case you would have all to gain and nothing to lose by murdering to escape.
What other deterrent is there to a man who has already incurred close to the maximum term of imprisonment that a humane law is likely to inflict? Would a certain twenty years be a deterrent to a man who is already doing, or likely to do, ten years? I do not think so. Here I disagree with my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne. As I have said, it is difficult to look beyond the next ten years. After that, time does not mean much. The prospect of spending the next ten years in prison is so appalling that twenty years, when looked at from this end. could not be much worse. Here the death penalty can be the only further deterrent.
If this Bill should get a Second Reading, I would not support an Amendment to stipulate a sentence of longer than ten years on deterrent grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Francis-Williams, who is no longer here, said that there is all the evidence on one side and all the emotion on the other; that the retentionists have no conclusive evidence at all. I do not think that any conclusive evidence has been given, or can be given, by the abolitionists, and I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Archibald, because I maintain that the onus of proof is on those who wish to change the status quo.

553
One thing I should like to know, in talking of the death penalty, is this. Why is a graphic appeal for the life of a murderer said to be reason and humanity, whereas, an equally graphic appeal for the life of the victim is said to be emotion and prejudice? It is the duty of the law to protect the innocent by providing deterrents to crime. Where life imprisonment is an adequate deterrent, all well and good. But when what is at present meant by life imprisonment is no deterrent, something further must be provided. A longer term of imprisonment is, in my opinion, useless as a deterrent, and more inhumane than the death penalty. In certain cases, the death penalty is indispensable.
Noble Lords have talked about the anomalies in the 1957 Act. My Lords, I cannot understand the concern certain people have shown over these anomalies. If, as we seem generally to agree in this House, the death penalty can be defended only as a deterrent and not as punishment or revenge, surely it follows that if it is a vital deterrent in certain cases only and not in others, it should be retained for the one and not for the other. May I remind your Lordships that none of the murders we are discussing has yet been committed. We can throw out this Bill and bring back the death penalty but there need never be another hanging, and indeed I hope there will not be.
Abolitionists are apt to dismiss all arguments in favour of retention as not worthy of consideration. Those in favour of keeping the death penalty are described as reactionary, emotional, hysterical, retrogressive and bloodthirsty—especially if they happen to be Members of your Lordships' House. If I may quote an extract from an article written by Bernard Levin in the Daily Mail when this Bill first came out in the other place, he said:
"The abolition of the death penalty will not I fear, mean the end of illogical thinking by those who are about to be deprived of their toy neck-breaker.
Surprise, for instance, is being expressed because this Bill to abolish execution for murder does not substitute imprisonment for the rest of the murderer's life, and attempts are apparently to be made to amend the Bill in this way when it is before the House of Commons or, more probably, the Lords, where you could easily command a majority for a Bill proposing hanging for seven-year-old
554
sweet-stealers, were it not for the fact that most of their Lordships are unaware that such penalties have ever been abolished."
Mr. Levin is an amusing columnist, whether his subject of the moment be serious or flippant, but this is typical of the attitude of many abolitionists. There are certainly strong arguments in favour of retention. Personally, I think that they outweigh the equally strongly held arguments in favour of abolition. Others may take an opposite view, but to refuse to consider the arguments on the other side, or even to admit that there are any, is to cast doubt on the validity of one's own conclusions.
I have twice voted against abolition Bills in your Lordships' House. Each time I reached my decision after careful consideration of arguments on each side. Both Bills were refused a Second Reading. Whenever, since then, a murderer has been hanged I have felt that a share of the responsibility was mine. I have had heart-searchings as to whether I had voted in the right way. Each time I have come to the conclusion that I was right to vote in that way. I am still of that opinion. If this Bill is passed, whenever any murder is committed, each of your Lordships who vote for it will have to ask himself the question, "If I had voted against the Bill, would this have happened?" Those of your Lordships who are not prepared to face up to this responsibility should not vote in favour of this Bill.
8.15 p.m.
LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. All my life I have been an abolitionist and in all the many elections I have fought in another place I have always answered the question, "Are you in favour of capital punishment?" with a firm, "No." In my votes in the other place I have gone on record against capital punishment. And yet, my Lords, to-day in this House I am listening to a debate on capital punishment for the first time. I am prepared to keep an open mind, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Denham, may I say that there appears to be a fixation in this debate to-day. Many noble Lords have come here and pronounced firmly, as I have just done, that they are on one side or the other. This fixation has revealed that most of the noble Lords opposite are for retention and most of the noble Lords

555
on this side of the House are for abolition. I hope that when we come to the end of the day, when we come to count the voices at the end of the debate, there will still be, as I intend to be, "open minders" on this subject who will count the arguments as they have heard them in your Lordships' House. That is the only way we can debate this great issue, and arrive at a "free" decision.
It is now almost six hours since this debate was introduced in a remarkable speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger. That, in itself, was history, because it was the first time that a woman was introducing a Bill in your Lordships' House for the abolition of capital punishment. I hope that more history may be made in this House tomorrow when we come to vote. I say that with some hope that the "wind of change", which appears to be blowing through your Lordships' House in recent weeks or months, may in fact blow still more strongly to-morrow. This debate has been throbbing backwards and forwards across this House, not for six hours but for 150 years, and always your Lordships in this House showed yourselves, by a majority, to be unprogressive when it came to the question, "Do you wish to abolish capital punishment?". I am hopeful that the progress that has been shown on another tricky subject in recent weeks may he an indication of what will happen to-morrow.
In the House of Commons before the 1820s the Bills on capital punishment were thrown out. When, later, they passed the Commons and came to your Lordships' House, they suffered a like fate. My Lords, the escutcheons of many of us are thick with blood on this question. I do not propose to join in the legal arguments, the legal niceties which have been the subject of so much debate today. Rather I want to content myself with a brief reference to the historical arguments and, later, the international argument.
On the question of the historical argument, we start off, just over 150 years ago, in our grandfathers' or great-grandfathers' time, with 200 crimes in this country which were punishable by capital punishment: the stealing of a sheep, the cutting down of a tree, the
556
stealing of 5s. worth of goods from a shop. Yet the punishment for all of those crimes was gradually reduced until by 1867 we were left with only to-day's present capital crimes. The great pioneer of this reform was one called Sir Charles Romilly, who between 1808 and 1818 fought hard to get reform through the House of Commons and who died in 1818 with only one reform Act to his credit—namely, that to abolish the death sentence for picking pockets. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent who is an expert on statistics, might tell us whether there were more or fewer pickpockets after that Act was passed in your Lordships' House.
Always the argument was that capital punishment is the great deterrent, and that its abolition would lead to an increase in that particular crime. Our forefathers in this House became slowly more progressive as the century wore on. Public executions were abolished only in our fathers' day, in the year 1868, because the Royal Commission of that time proved that they only added to the incidence of crime by this exhibition of sadism. The judges then, if not the judges now, were proved by the Royal Commission to be absolutely and hopelessly wrong on the question of the deterrent value of capital punishment.
I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying that I noticed to-day that certain judges speaking in this House, notably the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, introduced a refreshing note of change in their learned Lordships' thinking. I cannot help noting that in fact he said during the course of the debate to-day that there was almost unanimous opinion amongst their Lordships that it was impossible to work the Homicide Act 1957. This, to me, is a refreshing change on the part of our legal Lords. As though to summarise the 19th century, the Commissioners of Criminal Law in 1886 in their Report stated as follows:
"It is not proved that the repeal of capital punishment in any particular class of offenders leads to an increase of offences."
I am one of those who reads the Reports of Royal Commissions with great care, because I believe that when several years have been spent by persons selected for their expertise on this subject their conclusions must he regarded highly. So

557
what you might call the historical arguments of the 19th century, the hysterical arguments in favour of retention, were over, at the end of the century, except for the capital crimes we have to-day. And the lesson of the 19th century was simply this: that brutal punishment accustoms people to brutality, violence begets violence. Capital punishment is a barbaric form of punishment in any country which calls iself civilised, a form of State sadism which breeds sadism.
One of the most impressive things, I think, in the last few years on this question of capital punishment has been the fact that two former Home Secretaries, the noble Lord, Lord Chuter-Ede, who is our collegue in this House to-day, and Mr. Henry Brooke, the immediate past Home Secretary, have changed their minds and from being retentionists they have, in the light of experience, become abolitionists. This is surely remarkable. And is it not remarkable that our present Home Secretary is also an abolitionist? These are the men who come most closely to the question and the background of capital punishment in their Ministerial job, and I believe that we should pay attention to the fact that they have changed their minds. They, more than any other, can bear witness to the changing spirit of our age.
I will not detain your Lordships much longer on the question of the international arguments, but T would say that if fourteen of our neighbours in Western Europe have abolished capital punishment this surely is of some guidance to your Lordships. It may be very well for the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to brush aside the fact that some of these countries are mere Scandinavian countries, easy for him to brush aside the fact that in certain of these Western European countries there are no big towns like Birmingham or Glasgow. But he forgot to mention that Western Germany is one of those countries which have abolished capital punishment, and in fact Western Germany has its Dusseldorf, Essen, Cologne' and other cities which bear comparison with those in this country he mentioned.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I said that the countries that had been mentioned were not similar to ours. Western Germany, I think, was not mentioned.
LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY: If the noble Lord shows such knowledge of these subjects and made such a sweeping statement, he must know that Western Germany is one of those countries which have in fact abolished the death penalty. In case he does not know, may I tell him that the countries concerned are the Scandinavian countries, the Benelux countries, Western Germany, and Italy, our ex-enemies, and others in Europe and the world. May I tell him also that the reforming zeal in this country in the middle sixties of the last century was in fact continued to its logical conclusion in Belgium and Holland and, even before that, in little Luxembourg.
Surely it is interesting to look at Great Britain from the foreigners' angle. This country of ours is regarded by a foreigner as a great citadel of liberty and a great centre of civilisation. If we were Europeans, should we not think this country retrogressive to have retained capital punishment for so long as we have done? It might be that if we lived in France or Spain we should think otherwise since they still retain capital punishment. But I think no other European country would be justified in regarding Great Britain with its capital punishment as being that centre of justice, that centre of freedom, which we are so often credited with.
The Royal Commission of 1949–1953, so recently as ten or twelve years ago, studied the international example, studied the statistics, called foreign witnesses, went themselves to foreign countries including the United States of America, and after four years of intense investigation confirmed that we can abolish capital punishment without increasing the dangers. We take pride in this British civilisation of ours. Are we, the British, more brutal by nature so that we need capital punishment? Let us complete the reform begun in the Homicide Act, 1957; let us follow the lead of the Commons in a free vote which they registered only a week ago by two to one in favour of abolishing the death penalty. Let us accept this Bill and put ourselves on trial for the next five years, but let us hope that we shall never turn back.
8.27 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is late for a debate in your Lordships'

559
House, particularly since the debate will be continuing to-morrow. I want to say just two things. One of these is fairly new, and I think ought to be considered in the course of the debate. The second is not new, but it is something that I want to take this opportunity of saying. The point that is not new deals with the justification of the death penalty. I would start with the unexceptionable proposition that the deliberate taking of life, killing, is undesirable. This is so, whether the killing is by an individual or by the State, whether it is authorized or unauthorised. In civilised societies there must be overwhelming justifications before killing is authorised, whether it is killing of infants, or the killing of old people, the killing of the incurably sick or of criminals; and arguments in favour of the authorised killing of all these four categories have been advanced at different times throughout history.
The justifications for killing criminals who offend against society come down to two categories. There is the justification that society must be protected, the argument of public order; and there is the justification that the person and property must be protected, which is the argument of individual rights. Each of these justifications, in the end, depends on a deterrent. The alternative of retribution, in the sense of vengeance, one of the two interpretations used in the Royal Commission Report, is not often now put forward in responsible discussion, and the reformation of the offender hardly applies when talking about capital punishment.
So the question that matters, in considering this subject, is this: Is there overwhelming evidence to support the deterrent effect of the death penalty in protecting society as a whole or individual rights within society? The conclusion—and I think this has been said already—of the Royal Commission in 1953 was that there was no convincing statistical evidence to support the proposition that capital punishment had an overwhelmingly deterrent effect. I refer those of your Lordships who are doubtful about this to paragraphs 65 to 68, and especially paragraphs 67 and 68, on page 24 of the Report of the Royal Commission.
Statistics which have become available since 1953 have been quoted on both
560
sides of the argument, although not widely, in the debate this afternoon. Inferences have been drawn both ways from these statistics, and inferences have been challenged, but nothing I have seen has emerged to invalidate the Royal Commission's conclusion on this central point of whether or not there is convincing statistical evidence to support the proposition that capital punishment has an overwhelmingly deterrent effect. Therefore I must conclude that, in the absence of overwhelming evidence—and I stress these words deliberately—there is no case, or no case that I feel can be established by argument or by general reasoning, for the continued authorisation of the execution of murderers. As I say, this is not at all a new argument; it is something which several of your Lordships have put already. But I think it is a point of view which people who hold it should take this opportunity to express.
The second point concerns public opinion. The Gallup Poll, which is one of the indicators that exists of public opinion, has been quoted several times and I think needs looking at much more carefully. The Poll published in the Daily Telegraph on January 22 of this year suggested that, of those questioned, three to one were in favour of hanging; and, further, that a good number of those who were questioned thought of it not so much as a deterrent but in terms of retribution. The sort of phrase that was used in answers to questions was, "It gives the murderer what he deserves". As many as 33 per cent. of those questioned came up with what could be called a retributive view of capital punishment. But in spite of this the House of Commons, normally a body sensitive to public opinion, has by a decisive majority, on a non-Party vote, accepted the Bill; and the Government, while not themselves introducing the Bill, have found time for it in both Houses—indeed they gave it the almost unique distinction of a place in the gracious Speech. This situation illustrates the two different types of public opinion. There is informed opinion, which is often capable of starting things, and there is popular opinion which has the power of stopping things, which acts as a veto. Since public opinion in this sense is not a democratic affair of one man, one vote, the quality of opinion will give it more

561
influence than the numbers holding that opinion.
In this country informed opinion does have an extraordinarily influential role because of the centralised nature of the political system. Interest groups and lobbies can, as they have here, initiate proposals for legislative change, and where the initiative lies within a Government Department informed public opinion, and groups which are representative of special interests in society, are likely to be consulted and have their opinions taken. When legislative change is being considered this process takes place within the general limitations of popular opinion. But popular opinion, I repeat to your Lordships, is a negative factor—it can prevent excesses but it is incapable of generating pressure for change.
Opinion polls are important here. They are not proposals for action, they do not act as channels of communication, they are indicators of what the public is willing to accept. In the judgment of Government, in the judgment of a large majority of Members of Parliament, and in the judgment of much informed opinion at the moment, the climate is changing and is becoming more favourable towards abolition of the death penalty than in the past. So the question that matters, when looking at public opinion as a whole, in the popular sense, is not whether the public is anxious to see a change, because I think the public is never anxious to see a legislative change, but whether it is willing to accept a change once it is made.
So I have looked rather more carefully at the Gallup Poll, and in particular at the findings of a Gallup Poll in 1956. This was a poll taken in July after the free vote in another place which favoured the abolition of the death penalty. There were two sets of figures. They are quite simple, but I think they are important to the structure of the argument. Two questions were asked, and it is vital to look at the questions which are asked in an opinion poll. The first was: Do you approve or disapprove of the decision to abolish hanging? In reply 28 per cent. said they approved; 61 per cent. said they disapproved and 11 per cent. did not know. So it is possible to say that the majority was against abolition.
562
But if we look at the second question which was put to those who disapproved—the 61 per cent.—they were then asked: Now that the House of Commons has decided that hanging should be abolished, do you still feel the same as before, or are you willing that abolition should be given a trial? Those who phrased the question were a little premature in that assumption. Those who were outright in their opposition were 40 per cent; 17 per cent. said, "Give it a trial", and 4 per cent. were undecided, making the total of 61 per cent. Therefore, if your Lordships look at these two questions together, when faced with the fact that the House of Commons had voted in favour of abolition, and the people who were questioned assumed that meant the law was going to be changed although in fact that was an incorrect assumption, the majority of the public opinion, that is 45 per cent., was willing to accept this decision. Thus 45 per cent. said they were willing to accept the change, while 40 per cent. were still opposed. In this sense opinion polls should be examined to see what they can reveal.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I was only doing mental arithmetic, but I think my noble friend has got his mathematics wrong. He is taking percentages of two different figures and adding them together.
LORD WINDLESHAM: No. You will find that the answers to the second question total only 61 per cent. They are subtotals of 61 per cent. We are still on a 100 per cent. base.
LORD DERWENT: I apologise to my noble friend.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I have taken the trouble to check these figures.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is not the first time that his noble friend, Lord Derwent has got his figures wrong in this debate?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I would not seek to draw a misleading argument out of this. It is just that most people quote only the first figure, and I think that if one looks at the second question it is more interesting because the point can be made that it

563
is acceptability that matters, rather than the positive desire for change. Having said that, I do not believe that legislation should be geared to opinion in this way. But I do think that this information—and there is not much information available—about the actual state of public opinion is relevant to your Lordships' debate.
For these two reasons I believe, as your Lordships probably have gathered by now, that this Bill should be given a Second Reading. The final removal of the death penalty in those cases where it still applies would not only rationalise the law, but would be a step forward towards a more just and a more lawful society, in which sanctions and deterrents of all kinds are less necessary than they are to-day.
8.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I believe it has been agreed that I may speak at this juncture instead of my noble friend Lord Grimston of Westbury. This will have the added advantage that your Lordships will not be burdened with me to-morrow. I speak—and I address this remark particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, opposite—as one who is at the present moment a genuine waverer upon my decision to-morrow. I hope that, if I ask a few questions of the noble Lady and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, on the Front Bench, they may be able to help me and that I may be able to reverse the decision that I have tentatively reached at the moment. During the winter, when this Bill was receiving a Second Reading in another place, I sat in your Lordships' Gallery there with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I told the Lord Chancellor at the time that I thought that, in principle, I was in favour of the Bill. Indeed, I still declare myself to be in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, if that is possible, and if an adequate alternative is provided in its place.
We are dealing with the Bill as it has been sent up to us from another place, and are dealing with it in the light of the debates that have taken place there. Although I started with the assumption that I would support the Bill, I am afraid that I had a nasty
564
shock when I read the speeches made by the right honourable and learned gentleman the Home Secretary. I was looking for the policy of the Home Office in regard to an adequate alternative to the death sentence. I was not so interested in the cases of emotional murder, the crime passionelle, or whatever it may be, which obviously needs special treatment, but I was particularly interested in the alternative sentence which was to be available with the professionally hardened criminal.
On the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, the Home Secretary said this—I hope that I may be forgiven for this quotation, but I do not think it has been made before:
"It may well be—I do not say that it will always be—that in cases hereafter, if there were no commutation because of mitigating circumstances, the death penalty having gone, whether it would seem proper, having regard to the nature of the crime and the character of the individual, that his sentence should be longer than nine years. I would be very reluctant to make it much longer"—
I leave out a few words—
"because, generally speaking, experience shows that nine years, ten years, or thereabouts is the maximum period of confinement that normal human beings can undergo without their personality decaying, their will going and their becoming progressively less able to re-enter society and to look after themselves and become useful citizens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 704 (No. 38), col. 929, December 21, 1964.]
That is the position. At a later stage (I think it was on Third Reading), the right honourable gentleman returned to the subject. He said:
"As I have said on previous occasions, the nine years, experience shows, is round about the time when one may begin to get symptoms to show that the person in prison is beginning to break down, Therefore in practice a number of persons have been released after nine years in prison."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 716 (No. 152), col. 388, July 13, 1965.]
Those are the quotations. I take them to be the sort of policy that is adopted by the Home Office in these cases. I agree, of course, that the dangerous person, the one who is mentally unstable, will be kept in longer. But, as I understand it, it is the current view of the Home Office that a person who is, apart from his murderous activities, normal will begin to break down in that sort of period in prison. At any rate, I have those two statements from the Home

565
Office to support what I have said. This concerns the hardened, dangerous criminal.
We are often told that the public must help to catch criminals; that the police have not enough manpower to do it themselves, and that we must all "have a go". I sometimes wonder whether I myself should have the courage to do it. But this is what we are exhorted to do. If, as is undoubtedly the case, the main deterrent to all crime (I am not at the moment speaking of murder) is the certainty of conviction, then clearly the public have a great role to play in this. At present, as is perfectly obvious from recent events, not only is crime a very paying proposition, but it is exercised by cunning, skilful men, with careful planning, with profits of the crime tax-free, and there is therefore a great incentive to some people to go in for it. Those are the people whom the police and the public have to try to catch, or to deter before they enter upon their crime.
Then one has the case of Mr. Biggs, who escaped from Wandsworth Prison. In his case we were told that a message was issued from Scotland Yard that members of the public should not attempt to catch him, or his confederates, because they were likely to be armed. As it appears to me, one has the deterrent for all crime, the certainty of conviction, in which the public and police co-operate. The moment you have a criminal with a gun, or with the threat of a gun, half that element in the force that is to catch the criminal is immediately put off by the authorities themselves, for their own safety; and the police alone are left to deal with the offender—like the young man on the run who was cornered in the basement in South Kensington, when, mercifully, it was only the police dog that was shot; or the lunatic who ran loose on the Cumberland Fells and eventually shot himself in the railway station. It is the police alone who have to deal with that sort of case.
To return to murder itself, again the Home Secretary said that the chief deterrent to murder was the certainty of conviction. I have no doubt that this is a very important element. But this is where the two particular concepts about which we are talking do not seem to me to tie up. When one has a
566
criminal loose, somebody escaping from a prison, somebody attempting to resist arrest, or somebody of that nature engaged in dangerous crime, for which he is liable to a very long penalty if caught, and if he is armed with a gun, I do not think the ordinary member of the public would be prepared, or ought, to face him. What is his position? In many cases a hardened, professional criminal is going to get a sentence, if caught, of, say, twelve or fifteen years. Allowing for the one-third remission mentioned by Lord Stonham earlier this afternoon, it means that he might well be in prison for ten years.
If he is a normal and intelligent man—apart from these other activities—he is probably the person who is likely most quickly to break down under a very strict prison regime, when he is perhaps allowed only a few hours out of his cell because he is a maximum security risk. He is allowed to do only the more boring jobs; his exercise is limited; he is frequently inspected in his cell, day and night, and undergoes the most severe, rigours of prison routine. It is this man whom we are attempting to deter by the certainty of conviction. What is he to do if he thinks that he may be arrested or recognised by somebody—perhaps a police officer or a member of the public—who comes across him in the course of either his crime or his escape, or whatever it may be?
If the Home Secretary is in fact going to adopt the line that he suggested in another place, that he will be most unwilling to keep somebody sentenced to a life sentence in prison for more than nine, ten or twelve years, what has that man in the way of incentive not to shoot the person he meets? If he is caught, he will be put in prison for something like that period, in any event. If he shoots the only witness to his activity, he may escape altogether; but even if he did not escape he would no doubt, through the intelligence service of his confederates, have discovered that this is the likely policy that may be adopted towards him by the Home Office. This is one of the questions to which I should be very interested to know the answer.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount has asked a number of questions. I refrained from interrupting him before, because I wanted to listen

567
to his whole argument. But at least he will agree that if, in the case which he has just put forward, there is the death penalty—and this is proved in America and in figures I have already quoted this afternoon—there is even more likelihood that the criminal will shoot the only witness than if there is no death penalty.
I do not want to make another speech, but may I just answer other questions which the noble Viscount asked? He said that he was looking for an adequate alternative to the death penalty. The only alternative that I know to death is life. He quoted my right honourable and learned friend in some of his speeches. Obviously, he did not hear all that I, at least, had to say on this subject.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, I did.
LORD STONHAM: The first principle of my right honourable and learned friend is that a man will not be released if he is regarded as a menace to the public. That is the first duty of any Home Secretary. Therefore, the short answer to the noble Viscount is that in these unfortunate circumstances the man will be kept in prison so long as it is necessary to protect the public. But at Albany and elsewhere we shall provide special facilities for these men, so that they will not rot, as the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, said, in the way that has been the case in the past.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, because he has, in fact, anticipated the next point I wanted to make. It seemed to me that those who were sponsoring the Bill had to deal with the sort of circumstances which I have mentioned. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, intervened at that point, and I think what he said clarifies the matter very considerably. I am bound to say, however, that I do not think that this is the general impression which has been left in the mind of the public, and it is very unfortunate if that is so. If the noble Lord—and it is obviously his responsibility in the Home Office to deal with this—is really prepared to take this line, it may make the whole difference; but I do not think it is possible to approach the matter on any other lines.
568
There is far too much said in debates of this nature upon the well-being of the prisoner himself, and far too little upon the protection of the society into which he will eventually again emerge, as I understand it after, in some cases, a comparatively short period of imprisonment. Therefore, I believe that the Bill—and I am talking about the Bill to which we are invited to give a Second Reading, and not about anything which may be done by the Home Office—approaches this matter rather from the wrong end. It is perfectly all right to say that people can be kept in prison for as long as is necessary for the protection of the public; but there are two problems.
In the first place—and I do not want to be flippant about this—it does not seem to me easy to keep people in prison. I am not referring to the recent events at Wandsworth. There happens to be a brand-new maximum security prison near where I live, in East Anglia, and at least one prisoner has got out of the maximum security part of that since it was built in the last four years. Another eight, I think, have escaped in circumstances which are less blameworthy, when they were out in a position of trust during the last six months of their imprisonment. But one, at any rate, has got out of the maximum security part when he was meant to be under maximum security.
There are other cases which we know about very well. There is power, and has been since 1948 as I understand it, to provide special accommodation for prisoners serving, for instance, very long terms of imprisonment. I do not know whether the new prison in the Isle of Wight is going to provide for this sort of thing—perhaps it is—but it seems to me that it ought to be firmly established that there will be accommodation available to keep people in prison for as long as necessary in the public interest, and not in their own, so that they do not deteriorate in the way that has been mentioned by the Home Secretary in another place, before we can begin to say that any adequate alternative is being provided in this Bill.
I go a little further than that. I entirely appreciate that prison accommodation cannot be provided for in this Bill, but I think something else can be done which is not in the Bill and has been resisted

569
throughout in another place. Either, in the event that no accommodation is available, you should put in some special protection for the police officer or the prison officer as the case may be against the person who tries to arrest or tries to prevent an escape; or, alternatively, you should set up some body or some system of the type which was suggested by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, this afternoon, which will not leave these matters entirely to the discretion of the Home Secretary. I say this in no way derogatorily of the Home Office. I believe that they have expert advice, second to none; I believe that they take extreme care in the decisions made as to when people are to be released; but at the back of my mind I have the words of the Home Secretary and his reluctance, and, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, may say, I am still a little suspicious that there may be occasions when the deterioration of the prisoner becomes a bit more important than it ought to be in the very humane minds of the people in the Home Office.
This can be cured by a variety of methods, and these are to be discussed on the Committee stage of this Bill, if we get to it. It could be that the judge should be allowed to give a determinate sentence in certain cases. It could be that the Home Office should call in an outside panel, possibly consisting of Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeal and others, to help them when it comes to a decision about whether or not to release a man. Many schemes could no doubt be provided. But the difficulty is that we are asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill, the sponsors of which in another place have flatly, blankly and resolutely refused to consider any such thing whatever. Copious Amendments were put down in another place to deal with this matter. They were all rejected, mostly on a Division, and so far as I know there has been no suggestion this afternoon that any further consideration whatever will be given to this matter. That is the situation which I am in.
I am prepared to support the abolition, but I am not prepared to support it unless I am absolutely certain—100 per cent. cast-iron certain—that a proper alternative will be provided to the death penalty,
570
a penalty which will deter the people who I am quite certain will not be deterred by a maximum of nine or ten years in prison, as an average. This matter can be put right in Committee, but unless assurances are given—I think chiefly by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, because, after all, it is her Bill, no doubt backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—that we shall be allowed to discuss and, I hope, to carry into the Bill some sort of scheme on the lines that would have satisfied the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, and unless I am convinced by the final speech of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who is very important in this matter—
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Viscount knows very well that he will be able to move any Amendment that he wishes on Committee stage. But he must not ascribe to the sponsors of this Bill any responsibility for the attitude they will take.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. This makes my fears even more well founded than I thought. But unless I am satisfied that these alternatives will be provided, then I am left in the position that the death penalty is going to be abolished for the cases of which I am really afraid, and that no adequate alternative is going to be provided in this Bill. In that case it is a matter of principle, and I shall have no alternative but to vote against it. I hope, however, that I may be able to have my fears allayed at a later stage by the speeches of noble Lords and Baronesses opposite, in which case I will support them in the Division Lobby.
9.0 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, during the seven-and-a-half years I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have addressed this House on a number of occasions, but I have never had such a difficult task as the one I have to-night, and other noble Lords may well find themselves in this position. Whatever we may think of this Bill, it is a very important Bill indeed. To my mind, it is slightly like an uncooked omelette—the ingredients seem to be right, but the putting together has certain shortcomings. The noble Baroness who moved the

571
Second Reading did so with her customary charm and ability. I hope that the questions which my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross put forward in his excellent speech will receive very serious consideration, not only here but in another place when the Bill is returned, as it clearly will be, with a number of Amendments, if it receives its Second Reading—as, frankly, I hope it will.
It has been said that there are constitutional difficulties facing this Bill if it is passed, but, since I am not a lawyer, I will not go into them. I will accept that there may be. But we are discussing the Bill on its face value, and the issue before the House to-night, and more so to-morrow, is whether the death penalty is to be abolished. If the Bill passes through all its stages in both Houses, it does not preclude another Government, some years hence, from bringing in another Bill to restore the death penalty should this be needed. But one thing seems to me to be quite certain, and that is that the 1957 Act has been proved to be totally inadequate for the purpose for which it was drafted. Examples have been given. If you strangle, poison or stab another person but do not steal anything, that is all right; you go to prison for nine years plus. But if you steal 6d. from your victim's pocket, you are liable to the death penalty.
A good deal has been made of the fact that the death penalty is a deterrent. I should like to believe that it is. During the months that this Bill has been passing through another place I have been approached by a number of friends and acquaintances of mine, of all Parties, and almost all have said, "When this Bill comes to your House, you must see that it is thrown out". My answers have been non-committal, because I always approach any Bill—or I try to—in an objective manner, and this Bill will be no exception. Some of your Lordships may recall that in, I think, 1928, there was a particularly horrible murder of a policeman, Police Constable Gutteridge, who was shot down by two men whom he was trying to arrest from a stolen car. They wounded him and then, as he was lying on the ground, they shot him through his eyes. These men were executed. There was the famous case in 1935 of Dr. Ruxton—a hitherto blame
572
less man, so far as I know, who killed his wife in particularly foul circumstances. There was another particularly nasty case in 1938 at Nottingham, of a man called Frederick Nodder who enticed a small child to the river bank, strangled her and threw her into the river. He, too, paid the supreme penalty.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? In neither the case of Dr. Ruxton nor in the case of the man who foully murdered the child at Nottingham would the murderer have been hanged under the 1957 Act. They are not capital crimes. I thought it right to make that clear.
LORD AUCKLAND: That is just the case I was trying to make: that the fact that the death penalty was in force at that time was really no deterrent.
LORD STONHAM: Quite.
LORD AUCKLAND: Some ten years ago a young man who was at school with me in the West Country killed both his parents in Cornwall and threw them over a cliff. He, too, was executed for a particularly nasty murder. My Lords, in those days the death penalty was in force for any type of murder. Yet did that deter him? I have instanced these cases, although, admittedly, to-day we have different circumstances. There is more money about, and easy money can be got by youngsters.
It can be said that the Act of 1957 may deter a youngster from carrying fire-arms because if he shoots somebody he can go to the scaffold, assuming he is over 18. But your Lordships may also recall the case of Ruth Ellis, who killed a man in cold blood in a crime passionel type of murder. When she was executed there was a great public outcry; yet this was surely a particularly nasty, premeditated murder, even though it was done in a fit of jealousy. She obviously had not been worked up. So I do not think that the conviction that the death penalty is such a deterrent really holds water. I should like to think about it.
As I said earlier, I am not wholly satisfied with this Bill. I feel, as other noble Lords have done, that a Bill of this kind should have had Government blessing and the Government should have sponsored it. But at the same time,

573
I think the honourable Member for Nelson and Colne is to be congratulated on his courage in moving this Bill, even though some, like myself, do not agree with many aspects of it. At least, it is doing something to obviate the present chaotic conditions. One may ask what is to be done. My noble friend Lord Colville at Culross mentioned the new prison at Albany. I would follow him in his observations. The Sunday Telegraph last week had an article about a new prison for hardened criminals, including murderers, at Stuttgart, in Germany, which has every modern device. But they have had no escapes, because the prison is sufficiently equipped, wired and so on to prevent this and they have sufficient staff. I think this is important in regard to these new prisons such as Albany—and I hope there will be others.
I should like an assurance from the Home Office that top priority will be given to these matters, for it will be most important, if this Bill becomes law, that the staff should be specially picked men, who should perhaps be paid extra money. If possible, they should work in shifts rather like lighthouse keepers. Of course, there are difficulties here; but it would mean that we should get a really first-class type of prison officer to look after these hardened cases. It is important, at least in the initial stages, that when these murderers are sent to prison they are put into no doubt as to the severity of their crime and are not softly treated.
I am not altogether convinced that the present Home Secretary is entirely wrong in his arbitrary sentences. Great advances are being made in psychiatry and other forms of treatment, and I think it may be possible within nine or twelve years to reform quite a number of these murderers. I do not refer to men like Neville Heath, who committed two particularly foul murders. Was he barred by the deterrent of the gallows? His last words on going to the scaffold were, "All right, boys. Let's get going!" This was symptomatic, perhaps, of some Western film. Of course it may be that Heath was not entirely sane. Naturally, I should not be in a position to judge that. The Home Secretary at the time obviously went into this question thoroughly.
I think too that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, made a particularly valuable contribution to
574
this debate from the point of view of his experience in trying these cases. It is all very well for the public to scream for the return of capital punishment; but if there is a borderline case and somebody goes to the gallows (as in the case of Timothy Evans, on whose case I will make no more comment because it is the subject of a Parliamentary Question) they turn the other cheek and make a different form of outcry. I am certainly not a confirmed abolitionist; it may be, if it is proved that there is a real increase in particularly violent murders, that, whichever Government are in power, they will have to revise their views. In the meantime, I think that it would be a great pity if in a modern society we could not give this Bill at least a trial. I believe that a former Home Secretary, with his moratorium Amendment, probably had something. I do not know whether it is workable in law. There may well be foreign conventions and so on which would make difficulties, but it seems to me that something of this kind is needed.
If this Bill becomes law, it is vital that we should have maximum security prisons and suitable staffs to run them. I believe that the police and the public can be adequately protected, and that capital punishment can be abolished at least for a trial period, provided that these conditions are applied. I hope the sponsors of the Bill, when it goes back to the Commons, if it is given a Second Reading here, will consider these matters very seriously, because there are many people in this country, of all Parties, who would wish that. Meanwhile, my inclination is to support the Second Reading of this Bill.
9.15 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am the twenty-fourth speaker in this debate, and I hope I would take the view that if I had not something new to say I should withdraw my name from the list. I venture to think that before I conclude I shall convince the Members of this House that I have had a rather different experience from theirs, and from that experience have learned something which is applicable to this Bill.
I regret very much that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is not present in the Chamber. I am always impressed by his speeches. Indeed, I

575
regard the noble Viscount as the one solitary argument which I know in favour of the hereditary principle. I should like to have said to him, had he been present, that surely he must give his vote on the principle of the death penalty. I had very great sympathy with his argument that we must be careful about the alternative to the death penalty. I have been a prisoner, and I have been Secretary of the Prison System Inquiry Committee, and I place very great emphasis not only on the betterment of the individual prisoner but of society itself in the treatment given to prisoners, particularly to long-term prisoners.
I am quite sure that if Parliament decides to abolish the death penalty, it will not be long before we shall have to face the question which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, raised, of the treatment which would be most effective to protect society against those who have been guilty of murder. I urge both the noble Lords who spoke before me that their decision to-morrow should be on the principle of the death penalty, and, if Parliament decides to abolish the death penalty, I hope that their voices will be raised, with many other voices, for such changes in the prison system as will give security to society against those who are a danger to it.
My Lords, I wish first to give an example which has not yet been given of the very great question which must be in all our minds when we consider the death penalty: that is, the terrible issue of whether a mistake may be made when someone is condemned to death. I was delighted to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Layton. I am old enough to remember the Oscar Slater case, to which he referred. Oscar Slater was condemned for the murder of a girl called, I think, Ada Gilchrist. He was not hanged. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. He served eighteen years, and after those eighteen years it was proved that he was innocent. It might have been proved that he was innocent after he had been hanged, but that would not have been much advantage to him, though it might have been some consolation to those who were dear to him.
576
We have had the case of Timothy Evans mentioned frequently and I shall not refer to that further. I am going to refer to a case which has had no mention to-night, because I investigated it in great detail. It is the case of the A.6 murder, in which James Hanratty was condemned to death. In another place, on Friday, August 2, 1963. I asked for an inquiry into that case, because my close examination of all the evidence led me to the view that there was grave doubt that James Hanratty was guilty of that murder. In the debate which took place there were two speakers from the Conservative side, one of whom afterwards became a Minister, and two speakers from the Labour side, in addition to myself, both of whom have since become Ministers. All, except the Home Secretary, who replied to the debate, took the view that I put a case which demanded an inquiry as to whether Hanratty was ever guilty of that murder. I will not pursue that now, but there have been legal reasons why, during the last two years, I have not pressed again for an inquiry. To-night I say only that I shall resume that pressure as soon as the opportunity occurs.
That is the first new factor which I have introduced into the debate. The second new factor is this. I suppose that I am the only Member of this House who has been a prisoner in British gaols when men have been sentenced to death. I have been locked in my cell at 8 o'clock in the morning, waiting for the bell to toll, which indicated that a man had been hanged. I have passed through that experience three times, and it was only a few hours before Roger Casement was executed that I was released from Pentonville Prison.
My noble friend Lord Francis-Williams, as a newspaperman (and I sympathise with what he says, because I am also a newspaperman) described the ghoulish effect on public opinion of murder trials and executions. I ask your Lordships to think for a moment: if there is that ghoulish effect on the general public, what must be the effect on the population within a prison? They are so near a man who is to be executed. From the exercise yard one sees the gallows and scaffold. One passes the death chamber in which the man is kept during the days before the execution.

577
One meets the prisoners who have been given the task of cleaning the gallows before the execution takes place. In those conditions, an epidemic, an infection of sadism of the most appalling and bestial kind passes through the prison population. I was there immediately before the execution of Roger Casement. In the workshop was a prisoner who was making a book of bets as to whether Roger Casement would be executed or not; the prison coinage was a thumbful of tobacco. Those men in prison are regarded as the lowest in our community, the most subject to bestial response in an atmosphere around them. If one is thinking of society, there is nothing which could be more lowering to the mental or moral attitude of people in prison than a man being executed a few yards away.
I have been sympathetic towards the attitude of the members of the Prison Officers' Federation. I did great propaganda in forming that Federation when I was in prison. I understand the danger they feel, that if the death penalty is removed, in their circumstances prisoners may violently attack them, and perhaps kill them. But when the Prison Officers' Federation take that view, they are not reflecting the view of many officers who are personally involved in the executions which take place. I have spoken to them: the two warders who have nearly to carry the man to the scaffold before he is executed; the two warders who live night and day with the man in his cell before the morning of execution.
I was in the hospital of Liverpool Prison on my bed in a cell. To my surprise, after the last meal, the key turned in the lock of my door and the chief warder entered. He sat on the side of my bed and said: "You don't mind my coming to talk to you, Brock-way?" I said: "No". He said: "I have got to talk to someone. For three weeks I have been in charge of a man here who has committed murder. He has committed it; he acknowledges it. But he has told me his whole story. He has so revealed his mind and soul to me that I feel he is my son. I know him, and to-morrow morning I have to go to his execution. I have got to undo the buttons on his shirt after he is dead so that the doctor can sound whether his heart has ceased. And I am doing it to someone who is now my son."
578
I conclude by asking every noble Lord here: have you the right to vote tomorrow in favour of the retention of the death penalty, when I do not believe one of you would be prepared to act in that way at an execution—carrying the man to the scaffold, undoing his shirt, listening to his heart? What we are not ready to do ourselves we have no right to ask anyone to do on our behalf.
LORD GREENWAY: My Lords, the noble Lord has had vast experience, I can see. He would not be in this Chamber now if he had not reformed his outlook on life.
LORD BROCKWAY: My attitude to life now is exactly the same as it was when I was in prison.
LORD GREENWAY: I suggest the noble Lord go back there.
9.32 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, when a week ago I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House, there was a debacle. This time I hope I have got myself in better order. Nevertheless, I give the assurance that I shall not be long. I think your Lordships, individually and collectively, must be the kindest and most courteous legislative assembly in the world, and if it were for that reason alone I should consider it a privilege to belong to your Lordships' House. I myself have received nothing but kindness and courtesy here, and I should like to say that I am grateful for it and responsive to it.
My main reasons for supporting this Bill are not just that the 1957 Homicide Act is illogical. Many of our laws seem at times to be illogical to me, but, of course, times and opinions change, and our laws reflect the state of mind of society at the time that they were passed. The 1957 Act, though a compromise, in my opinion has been an invaluable half-way house while the mind of the public was being prepared by reformers to accept total abolition. The arguments about abolition in which I have taken part, and of which we have heard much to-day, start round the question of whether the death penalty is a deterrent. So one asks someone who thinks it may be a deterrent whether five years without it is not worth at least a try. Then come more doubts. They say that it is a just retribution. They

579
ask: "Are not people of this sort better done away with anyway?"
I have some sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, but the sympathies of my heart and my head are with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. My answer to this Bill is that it is a matter of principle, and, surely, we should never in any circumstances encourage the use of violence in our behaviour. We should discourage it how we can, and we should consider how this policy of increasingly peaceful coexistence has benefited us as the years of civilisation have progressed. There is an instance I can take here in your Lordships' House. The Table dividing the noble Lords on the two Front Benches is, I have been told, two sword-lengths wide, so that, if provoked, one angry and dexterous noble Lord cannot run another through. This may be a legend but it is an indicative one. Nowadays, thank goodness!, your Lordships settle your arguments without bloodshed. It is not thought good form to draw a weapon on anybody, or even to wear one except in costume.
We have abolished the rack and the wheel and the cutting out of tongues, and, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, shoplifters are no longer hanged; they are not even transported for life. Mental violence such as brain washing is deplored. In short, my Lords, we have become more civilised, more humane, more gentle in our attitude to our fellow creatures, and I think all your Lordships must agree that society is the better for it. These changes in deportment have, I believe, always come about by imitation of the leaders of society, whoever they may be considered to be at the time, for we copy whatever behaviour we are encouraged to think admirable. The death penalty and the elaborate ritual which goes with it is brutal and violent, and therefore I believe it sets a bad example and not a good one.
9.38 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that most of the ground has been more than adequately covered I do not propose to keep your Lordships more than a minute or two. For me, the question of whether or not we should abolish
580
the death penalty is a very simple one. It is not for me a test of whether the death penalty is a deterrent or not, but whether it is right for society to impose an irrevocable sentence. That may be over-simplifying the matter but for me it is the test. I am not persuaded that the processes of law are infallible. I think there is an abundant amount of evidence to show that in this century more than one innocent person has been hanged, and because of that possibility—because of that actuality—I feel that society ought not to impose a sentence that it cannot reconsider if the occasion arises.
It is on an occasion of this kind that my mind goes back to a situation towards the end of 1953, when a young police officer in Buckinghamshire was savagely attacked and assaulted by three men. In the process of time three men were apprehended and charged, and early in the next year, in January, 1954, those three men were sentenced to 10 years', 7 years' and 4 years' imprisonment respectively, it being only by the mercy of Providence that the police officer did not die but recovered from that savage attack. In the course of time the Home Secretary was informed that these three men were not guilty of the offence for which they had been sent to prison, and the Home Secretary of that time, with commendable speed, caused an inquiry to be held. It was found that the three men convicted of that savage assault were in fact innocent. All I want to do is to remind your Lord-ships that a police officer was involved. If that police officer had died, one, if not all, of those three men would have been hanged.
It is because situations of that kind have arisen and do arise that, for me, the test is the very simple one: that society must not impose an irrevocable sentence; and, for that reason, if for no other, I would not only support the Second Reading of this Bill but would ask your Lordships, in the light of knowledge, in the light of what has happened in the past, to give it your support as well.
9.40 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF HERTFORD: My Lords, I rather doubt now whether it is possible to produce any further arguments in favour of the abolition of the

581
death penalty. However, I have an un-easy feeling that many of your Lord-ships remain convinced that it is necessary to retain this unique and awful deterrent if only because it is the only punishment that is as unique and as awful as the crime of murder itself.
My own conviction that the death penalty should be completely abolished stems from the simple fact that I do not believe that either an individual or a State has any right to take the life of a man or a woman even if that man or woman is a murderer. My conviction is supported by the massive weight of evidence which shows that this "unique deterrent" is no such thing, for its removal in other countries has made no difference. Unless you actually believe that the British are more brutal and more inclined to commit murder than those of any other nation, and that they are more likely to be restrained from murder by the fear of hanging than others, to talk of the necessity of this deterrent is, with all due respect, nonsense. I sincerely hope that your Lord-ships will give a Second Reading to this wise, excellent and long-awaited measure of reform.
9.42 p.m.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, I rise as one of the younger Members of your Lordships' House to support this Bill. I feel that it is morally wrong to take life as retribution. Public opinion is said to be in favour of the retention of hanging as a deterrent. If this really is the case, I suggest the motive is revenge rather more than deterrence. I am sure, in fact, that public opinion is really in favour of abolition and cannot in 1965 allow cold-blooded licensed killing to remain in our legal system. I do not believe that hanging is a significant deterrent. There are some murders, like the one cited by the learned Queen's Counsel Mr. Emlyn Hooson in another place, of the man he represented who said, "She deserved to die and I want to hang for it". In that case, hanging was not a deterrent but almost an incentive.
The psychological context is most important, especially when it comes to
582
young people. The majority of murders are committed, in fact, by young people. In 1963, 62 per cent. of murders were committed by people under 30. The reason for this, I believe, is fairly simple in that to younger people life is less precious than it is to their elders. The greater the risk, the greater the thrill and enjoyment; the "chicken dare" has produced a number of tragic deaths. Thus the death penalty can be seen to be an exciting challenge that is there to be cheated. Therefore, I submit that for the young the idea of growing old in prison is a more sobering thought than the notoriety and glamour of execution. This is borne out by what the noble Lord, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey, said of public executions in the nineteenth century. Consequently, I hope your Lordships will to-morrow show that you wish the death penalty to be removed from our penal code.
9.45 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I have listened to many speeches and I wish to ask one question—namely, which of your Lordships can really say that you have the confidence of the public of this country? I am quite confident that 75 to 80 per cent. of the public of this country, the men and women in the street, are dead against this Bill becoming law. Not one of your Lordships has mentioned this fact this afternoon. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, said that 70 per cent. of the public of this country will agree to a 30 years' life sentence. Does he know—?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Do you?
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I wanted to say this, because I was a magistrate for forty years, and I know a little about this. I can assure your Lordships that if you pass this Bill you will not have the confidence of the public of this country.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Molson, I beg to move that this debate be adjourned until eleven o'clock to-morrow morning.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPERANNUATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  THE OLYMPUS GAS TURBINE ENGINE
  THE OLYMPUS GAS TURBINE ENGINE